The problem is such laws can, and will, be used to self-perpetuate.
For example: In Brazil the constitution says you have free speech and the right to criticize government officials...
Yet the judiciary branch, although often they rule it is free speech when someone criticize lawmaker, will happily say it is NOT free speech when someone criticize a judge.
Cue most recent elections, not wanting to enter in the merits of who deserves to be president, but one obvious case of abuse of office happened when the supreme court ruled that a retired member of the court should be censored and that reporting any news about this subject should be censored too, all because that retired member explained the technical legal details of a past decision, and the supreme court decided that even though everything he said was factual, correct and true, it "could be used for misinformation" and thus should be censored.
Western censorship laws tend to be really old, New Zealand's had such a law since 1857 (around about when we first started passing laws, before that the UK's probably applied) - and are largely aimed at obscenity (not political discourse)
I'd challenge you to show where the NZ Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act allows censorship because of a particular political point of view
It looks like most of the political censorship in NZ was to suppress anti-war publications, which has been less of an issue since that particular law was passed. Other censorship laws blocked movies like All Quiet on the Western Front as well as communist publications.
The only political point of view I've noticed that was censored under that particular act (based on 5 minutes of perusing Wikipedia) was supporting euthanasia, which is illegal in NZ
How would you or me know they didn't sensor political speech on Facebook or another social media platform?
Are they clearly documenting how many times what content is being exactly censored why and then transparently publishing that to everyone ? Is the publisher of content on social media being notified they are censored in NZ ? Do they have a right to appeal ? How will they appeal if they don't get notified ? Is the appeal process simple and inexpensive enough for independent content creator to avail ?
For censorship to work, the system of censorship should be very objective, clear and transparent and with avenues for inexpensive recourse.
NZ and all commonwealth countries which have similar systems are not close to that. These are system as you say were not designed for social media so have no business censoring social media unless they have adapted ( which they have not). Inefficient bureaucracy also suppresses free speech not just conservative or authoritative regimes.
As you can imagine, most of the decisions seem to be focused on CSAM. But it also lists non-video censorship.
I'm not sure I'd call it highly visible, but it's very easy to find and search. I have no idea what the disputes process looks like, but I'd be shocked if they didn't have one.
Can you make the same case using a country sharing a similar lack of public sector corruption with New Zealand? New Zealand consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries, Brazil not so much: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
For example: In Brazil the constitution says you have free speech and the right to criticize government officials...
Yet the judiciary branch, although often they rule it is free speech when someone criticize lawmaker, will happily say it is NOT free speech when someone criticize a judge.
Cue most recent elections, not wanting to enter in the merits of who deserves to be president, but one obvious case of abuse of office happened when the supreme court ruled that a retired member of the court should be censored and that reporting any news about this subject should be censored too, all because that retired member explained the technical legal details of a past decision, and the supreme court decided that even though everything he said was factual, correct and true, it "could be used for misinformation" and thus should be censored.