I don't know where you heard any myth about 'Rugged NZ individualism".

NZ is generally pragmatic, and I think support for that approach is what we saw and incidentally why national did so badly.

About the only thing I've been capable of is rewatching episodes of Never Mind The Buzzcocks.

If it is adequate, in your mind, for their poor behavior to be countered by speech (such as by callers to radio shows) why is their opportunity to speak any the less now they have exactly the same opportunities as others?

If there's something special about their loss of opportunity to speak then there was something special about their speech.

And if there was something special about their speech then there wasn't an opportunity to counter it by the public by simply speaking up, was there?