Truth or Truce? The Legality of Restriction on Olympic Athletes' Freedom of Speech

Abstract

In this article, we assess the legality of restricting Olympic athletes' fundamental right to freedom of speech against New Zealand domestic human rights standards as well as fundamental values of Olympism. We argue that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies to the New Zealand Olympic Committee under section 3(b) of the Act. The restrictions on freedom of speech in the athletes' agreements therefore need to comply with section 14. The restrictions are however incompatible with this provision, and are not saved by section 5 as they are not reasonable limits prescribed by law that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. We recommend two solutions: one specific and one more holistic one. First, the New Zealand Olympic Committee should remove from the athletes' agreements the reference to rule 50 of the International Olympic Charter, which is the source of the blanket ban on any kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda. Instead, the athletes' agreements should only restrict speech that is contrary to the Olympic values, such as racist or discriminatory speech. Our second, holistic, solution is radically different. Here, we propose changing the host selection process to ensure that a host's legal and political framework lives up to the values of Olympism. We argue that such an approach would have a real impact and address the root causes of why restrictions on athletes' freedom of speech are included in their agreements in the first place.