Emilie Horsfall against Stuff
Case Number: 3911
Council Meeting: 12 October 2026
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: Stuff
Principle: Discrimination and Diversity
Ruling Categories: Discrimination
Stuff published an article on July 28, 2026, titled Winston Peters calls Greens ‘appallingly retarded’ over data centre ban.
The story reported NZ First leader Winston Peters saying the Green Party’s call for a moratorium of data centre consents was “retarded.” The article reported that Mr Peters repeatedly used the words after he was challenged. The story also set out why the words were considered to be a slur and insult and that it was regarded as hate speech by the Special Olympics.
Emilie Horsfall complained the word was a slur and tool of emotional and psychological violence against disabled people. It was used 10 times in this article where Stuff commonly censored or limited the use of offensive language to avoid causing offence to readers.
She believed it breached Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity as it was sensational reporting that was harmful and failed to give consideration to the concerns of disabled people.
In response Stuff said it understood the complainant’s concern that the language used was offensive. In this instance the headline and story directly quoted Winston Peters, one of New Zealand’s most experienced politicians.
“Where public figures use controversial or offensive language in the course of their public duties, there can be a strong public interest in reporting their words accurately so readers understand both what was said and the reaction it may provoke.”
“Our intention was not to endorse, but to report it faithfully as part of a newsworthy political story. We recognise that readers may disagree with that editorial judgement.”
The Media Council agrees that the use of the word retarded in this context could cause distress and offence. But it accepts Stuff's explanation that they were quoting Mr Peters and that they did not endorse the term. It was Mr Peters’ decision to deliberately and repeatedly use the word as an insult. That may reflect on him, but it does not reflect on the newspaper that published it. Reporting the conduct of politicians is most certainly in the public interest.
This complaint also relates to freedom of speech. The Media Council’s founding precept is that there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression and this freedom is jealously guarded in the public interest. Mr Peters was exercising his freedom of speech and so was Stuff, which made a point of explaining why the term was offensive.
While people have every right to object to what is said, they do not have a right to not be offended. Use of language is a matter of judgement and taste. Politicians and editors must weigh what their audiences will tolerate, accept or appreciate. That is not something the Media Council can dictate.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.
The story reported NZ First leader Winston Peters saying the Green Party’s call for a moratorium of data centre consents was “retarded.” The article reported that Mr Peters repeatedly used the words after he was challenged. The story also set out why the words were considered to be a slur and insult and that it was regarded as hate speech by the Special Olympics.
Emilie Horsfall complained the word was a slur and tool of emotional and psychological violence against disabled people. It was used 10 times in this article where Stuff commonly censored or limited the use of offensive language to avoid causing offence to readers.
She believed it breached Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity as it was sensational reporting that was harmful and failed to give consideration to the concerns of disabled people.
In response Stuff said it understood the complainant’s concern that the language used was offensive. In this instance the headline and story directly quoted Winston Peters, one of New Zealand’s most experienced politicians.
“Where public figures use controversial or offensive language in the course of their public duties, there can be a strong public interest in reporting their words accurately so readers understand both what was said and the reaction it may provoke.”
“Our intention was not to endorse, but to report it faithfully as part of a newsworthy political story. We recognise that readers may disagree with that editorial judgement.”
The Media Council agrees that the use of the word retarded in this context could cause distress and offence. But it accepts Stuff's explanation that they were quoting Mr Peters and that they did not endorse the term. It was Mr Peters’ decision to deliberately and repeatedly use the word as an insult. That may reflect on him, but it does not reflect on the newspaper that published it. Reporting the conduct of politicians is most certainly in the public interest.
This complaint also relates to freedom of speech. The Media Council’s founding precept is that there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression and this freedom is jealously guarded in the public interest. Mr Peters was exercising his freedom of speech and so was Stuff, which made a point of explaining why the term was offensive.
While people have every right to object to what is said, they do not have a right to not be offended. Use of language is a matter of judgement and taste. Politicians and editors must weigh what their audiences will tolerate, accept or appreciate. That is not something the Media Council can dictate.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.