Journalist cleared by judge after court action gagging attempt
Thursday, 24 July 2025
An Auckland parking warden has failed in his court action to gag a journalist who sent him an email asking him questions for a story.
Morgan Zhihong Xiao makes political comments online and is a failed local body politician who ran in the 2022 election for the Howick ward in east Auckland.
The race between six candidates saw Xiao poll last.
Xiao made three applications under the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA) against a reporter from The Post, Justin Wong.
In her decision released on Wednesday, Judge Kate Davenport dismissed Xiao’s applications.
“No party can use the act to muzzle genuine comment and different views.”
In her ruling, Judge Davenport said the issue arose when Wong reposted an article by another journalist, Portia Mao.
Mao, who worked on the Stuff Circuit documentary the Long Game, published a story about Chinese political influence in New Zealand. Xiao had also sought an order against Mao under the HDCA which was later dismissed.
Xiao’s application for orders against Wong said he wanted to stop the journalist from doing what he was doing and not encourage anyone else to do the same.
His grounds alleged Wong had been “encouraged by Portia Mao to make false allegations and harassment on me and further encouraging others to harm me [sic].”
Xiao also complained that Wong had emailed him questions while writing a story for The Post.
The questions related to Xiao’s posts made online about Mao.
Among other things, Wong asked Xiao if he was “intending to intimidate the journalist or block her access from the [Chinese] diaspora”.
Instead of responding to Wong, Xiao complained to Wong’s editors, alleging the journalist had been “very rude” and defamatory.
Wong’s editors backed him and Wong re-sent his questions.
Xiao did not answer the questions but instead accused Wong of being “encouraged” by Mao. He also said reposting Mao’s story on Linkedin breached the interim court order he had against Mao.
Wong removed the Linkedin post but proceeded with his story.
When the story ran, Xiao made another application under the HDCA, alleging the story contained false allegations and was an attempt to harm him.
“He said the article groundlessly portrayed him as a New Zealand public servant who assisted the foreign country in illegally intimidating a free journalist.”
Wong told the court that Xiao had tried to harass him and weaponise the HDCA to stop him writing a story that was in the public interest.
Judge Davenport said a person wanting orders under the HDCA must show they have suffered or will suffer harm. They also need to first go to Netsafe. The court will only grant orders if there has been a serious breach of the principles.
Judge Davenport said only one of Xiao’s complaints went through the Netsafe process and qualified.
“The Harmful Digital Communications Act exists for the purpose of protecting society and individuals from those who would harm them by making digital communication at the time of an increasing number of keyboard warriors and trolls.”
She said it was important to have a mechanism in place so harmful posts can be removed from the internet.
“However, it is not a mechanism for the suppression of genuine debate and discussion.”
She said the communications between Wong and Xiao did not reach the threshold.
“Mr Wong has not intimidated, harmed, defamed, harassed or made false allegations or encouraged others to do these things. He agreed with Ms Mao, and he reposted the article. He then removed it.”
She said the email had only sought information and Xiao was free not to answer the questions.
“It would be a sad state of affairs if simply sending an email requesting answers to questions which Mr Xiao could choose not to respond to amounted to a harmful digital communication…”
She ordered Xiao to pay costs to Wong who had been represented in the case by Robert Stewart KC.
Wong told Stuff that he pleased with the decision.
“This is a big win for New Zealand’s journalists. The Harmful Digital Communications Act is not a tool to be used for reputational management by people who do not like questions that journalists are asking.'