A proposal for laws designed to tackle online misinformation has seen Australia’s Federal Government come under fire from an unlikely alliance of critics, who’ve warned it constitutes a “chilling assault” on free speech in Australia.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which was introduced to Parliament last week by Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, would give the Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA) wide-ranging latest powers to impose massive fines – as much as 5% of worldwide revenues – on social media platforms that allow the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation on their services.
Claiming that misinformation and disinformation pose a “serious threat” to social cohesion and democracy, the laws shifts responsibility for enforcing compliance onto the platforms hosting it, running the danger that corporations would put the protection of their bottom line above free speech and non secular expression.
Already in its second draft after an earlier version was universally condemned, including by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the updated laws immediately got here under ferocious attack by groups from all sides of public discourse.
Minister Rowland offered strong assurances that the revisions had taken great care to “rigorously balance the general public interest in combatting seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation with the liberty of expression that’s so fundamental to our democracy”, but many are warning it could potentially be used to silence beliefs and opinions that go against the mainstream opinions of the day.
Claiming the bill poses a dire threat to spiritual, political, and civic freedom, lobby groups say its definitions of misinformation and disinformation are far too broad, and would allow the federal government to silence legitimate beliefs and opinions that should not aligned with its own positions.
“The big tech firms will turn out to be the censorship and enforcement arm of the federal government to shut down debate and speech that it disagrees with,” said John Storey, Director of Law and Policy on the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).
“If a citizen were to disseminate information which was factually true, but ACMA or a fact checker labelled it ‘misleading’ or ‘deceptive’ since it ‘lacked context’, then that information would fall inside the scope of those laws.”
Faith groups also warned that real religious beliefs could possibly be deemed ‘misleading’ and ‘reasonably likely’ to ‘contribute to serious harm’ for arguing with the federal government’s positions on such issues as LGBTQI+ and reproductive rights.
“Digital platforms may be penalised for non-compliance with government expectations, but not for over-censorship,” Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) CEO Michelle Pearse said.
“There’s no knowing where this can end. Instead of safeguarding the free speech of Australians … ACMA becomes an Orwellian Ministry for Truth. From public health to politics to the economy and beliefs,  ACMA will determine what Australians are, and should not, allowed to say online.”
Free speech advocates were also alarmed by the revised laws, with the Co-Director of The Free Speech Union of Australia, Dr Reuben Kirkham, calling the laws an “attack on our freedoms.”
“Despite the outpouring of public concern last time around, the federal government has still failed to handle the important thing issues with it,” he told Sky New Australia.
“How does anyone determine if the content accommodates information that’s ‘reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive’ — it’s as clear as mud.”
The unveiling of the laws saw Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese engage in a disagreement with the billionaire owner of social media platform X, Elon Musk, who labelled the Albanese government “fascist” over its plans.
Albanese hit back at Musk’s remarks in an opinion piece published by major media outlets across the nation, while Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones dismissed them as “crackpot stuff”.
“For the lifetime of me, I am unable to see how Elon Musk or anyone else, within the name of free speech, thinks it’s OK to have social media platforms publishing scam content, which is robbing Australians of billions of dollars every 12 months,” he said.
The laws faces a difficult battle ahead, with the Federal Opposition more likely to throw its support behind the bill’s opponents, who see it as putting an excessive amount of power within the hands of the federal government—undermining the very foundations vital to a free society.
“It’s dangerous to permit government bureaucracies to make decisions about which kinds of information are true, secure and reasonable and to ban the remaining,” columnist Monica Doumit wrote in The Catholic Weekly.
“One of the important thing things that protects a society from tyranny is the free flow of knowledge and the power of anyone to talk their mind.
“Once that’s taken away, it won’t be easier to differentiate truth from lies, but it’s going to be harder to differentiate truth from the ‘approved narrative’.”
