Submissions close today!
It’s better to say something short than nothing at all. Let it be known that we have grave concerns, and far too little time to debate and discuss such far reaching legislation. Please read submissions posted below and add your own here too. Thank you! — Jo
Upload your submission here (button on the right hand side)
Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 3526
[email protected]
Public submission regarding: Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024.
_____________________
The Misinformation Bill is not just wholly unnecessary, it’s an abject travesty. How did such a preposterous overbearing, undemocratic, anti-science and dangerous piece of legislation get past the first focus group? It wouldn’t survive a high-school debate, and yet, here it is?
Misinformation is easy to correct when you own a billion dollar news agency, most academics, institutions, expert committees and 25% of the economy. The really hard thing, even with all that power and money is to defend an absurd lie and stop people pointing it out, which is surely the main purpose of the Misinformation Bill amendments. The government can already correct any misinformation that really matters, so these amendments curtail our freedom of speech for no benefit at all.
Guilty until proven innocent?
The amendments turn free speech on its head — instead of having the implicit right to criticize the government, everyone now needs to prove to some judge that their views are “reasonably” satire, or reasonable dissemination for an “academic, scientific or religious” purpose, and that their “motive” is honest and their behaviour is “authentic”.
When it comes to reasonableness in a democracy the highest court should be the court of public opinion, but how can the people decide if they are not allowed to hear it?
How is it even a democracy still if the government is allowed to take our money to force feed us the governments view on the ABC and in every captured university (dependent on government funds), but the people cannot even reply through sheer unfunded creative wit?
This legislation puts a very unfree cloud over all groups, forums, blogs, and social media.
The fines (and all legal fees today) are so obscenely, disproportionately harmful to Australians that few will risk going to court, instead the platforms will be preemptively second guessing what a judge might say is reasonable, and people with serious social media accounts will be second guessing the second-guesses of their platform controllers in fear that they might be thrown off, and lose years of work if they guess wrongly.
Worse, the big platforms, supposedly so “independent” will become unaccountable but de facto arms of the government. The platforms will know if they don’t perform as expected and favorably to the incumbent masters, that the rules will get more onerous, the fines bigger. And thus and verily will the unholy alliance of Big-Tech and Big-Government will become Big-Brother in your conversations, and Big Bankrupter in your nightmares.
The government claim they are not censoring anyone, but it’s just done at arms length with “implausible” deniability. Obviously the laws will censor all of us who are not already controlled by ACMA or the government through a public salary, a grant, or a Code of Practice written into the the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act.
Who silences the government misinformation, then?
We were there when the government experts told us margarine with hydrogenated fake vegetable fat would be great for our hearts. We heard them when they told us an ice age was coming, and antibiotics were useless against stomach ulcers. We noticed they told us to hold off on the peanut butter for babies to prevent allergies, only to find out that all these things were misinformation.
What happens when the experts are wrong, but the people who are unconvinced can’t speak up because they might “harm… the efficacy of a preventative health measure”? These health measures may take a … lifetime… to even measure the efficacy. Does the government get a free pass for 40 years?
It was estimated dietary trans fats (found in margarine) were killing 82,000 people a year in the US. (Danaei et al 2009). Should we have fined all the people who talked about this, and perhaps delayed things, and killed a half a million more? Someone speaking against hydrogenated margarine could have been deemed to be spreading “misinformation causing harm to public health in Australia”. So 20 years later, they turn out to be right — will the government compensate the families of the dead who might have chosen a different sandwich spread had they heard another opinion and been able to make up their own mind?
Will Facebook and Twitter need to block the accounts of experts who were wrong? Or, are there two kinds of citizens in Australia — one sort that work for the government, who can give their opinions and get things wrong without losing their right to speak, and the Untermenschen, who cannot speak, even if they are right?
Confidence has to be earned, not ordered
Apparently the citizens of Australia are not allowed to say anything that might harm the confidence in the banking system or the financial markets. But if our banking system is so fragile, or our currency so fake, that it needs a law to force people to “feel confident” then we are in a trouble already.
Nothing damages confidence like making a law to silence critics.
As adults, we filter misinformation our whole lives, it’s our job
We are all adults in this room, and we have lived our whole lives filtering out advertising spin, ignoring political lies, and reading books telling us we can stops storms if we just ride a bike. Since the stone-age we’ve spent our lives climbing from one misinformation-swamp to another, but as adults, it’s our job to figure it out. Free will and all. How dare you treat us like children.
And even the children about to enter the room have to learn how to deal with misinformation. How exactly can we teach them, if the government serves up one permitted line to protect us from accidentally hearing something “wrong”?
It’s not just that this misinformation bill is egregiously wrong, it’s that we shouldn’t have one at all in the first place.
REFERENCES
Danaei et al (2009) The preventable causes of death in the United States: comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors, PLoS Med, . 2009 Apr 28;6(4):e1000058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000058. Epub 2009 Apr 28.
The Bill: Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024
The 69 page proposed legislation PDF form and Word doc.
Submissions close on the 30 September 2024. (General advice on how to make a submission).
Submissions can be uploaded here (button on the right column) or emailed to the Committee Secretariat below.
One would think that in Australia billion dollar Government agencies such as CSIRO (scientific research organisation) and the ABC (anachronistic government funded media outlet, essentially a far Left propaganda organisation) would, if they followed their charters and legal responbilties, be sources of truth.
Instead, they themselves are major sources of misinformation such as CSIRO claiming that wind is the cheapest form of electricity generation and just about everything stated on “Their” ABC.
Thus, I pointed out in my previous submission on the same topic on the same bill in August 2023
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/acma2023-31735-david-s-maddison.pdf
that government itself is the primary source of misinformation and gave numerous examples.
140
Excellent post David. Let’s hope someone listens.
50
This is an extract from my latest submission:
130
Thank you David!
110
Thanks Jo.
30
Excellent David! I was so wearied by the fact that, after a submission to the original Bill I was nowvrequiredvtonwrite another. I therefore resubmitted the original & hope it won’t be discarded for that reason.
100
Thanks Vicki.
I doubt they’d notice yours was a resubmission as sadly all of them were probably unread the first time.
But, as our Civilisation collapses, it’s still important to document the reasons for future historians.
It’s likely however that they got some brain dead public serpent(s) to go through all 23,000 submissions to try to work out a tally of the number in favour of censorship and those against.
Public opinion and therefore votes do occasionally matter to politicians.
I too resubmitted the main body of my August 2023 submission as nothing has changed. I just added the note above.
90
Don’t trust the fake conservative Liberal Party faction of the Uniparty to vigourosly and properly oppose this.
The legislation has its origins with them as does the e Safety Kommissar.
The Lib/Lab/Greens are working together on this.
And I’d be willing to bet that if the Libs win the next election, they will NOT repeal this legislation or remove the position of the Kommissar.
100
It will be rammed through because of the reasons most object to it.
Before I can no longer say it, everyone for it is a high functioning sociopath.
80
Well put Jo. It’s in the lap of the gods now. I’ve made approaches to my local MP who genuinely opposes the Bill, no one is too hopeful as this is the agenda that is a long time in the making.The independents hopefully will consider intently this proposed legislation and reject it.
100
What are we? A bunch of juveniles that require full time correction and redirection? Can you imagine the uproar if parents were to punish their children for even the slightest misdemeanor. This proposed legislation is a travesty and must be defeated. The problem is that all three main parties agree with it. Labor will sign its death warrant if it attempts to progress it!
100
Ministry of Truth rides again!
Our ideological governments of a lefty persuasion are using 1984 as a manual instead of a warning.
60
The government is not fit for purpose. It has become overgrown with too many irons in the fire. Wise pollies are few and far between. A sign of maturity is being able to listen to alternate opinion respectfully. I am old enough to remember B&W Tele programs featuring Journalists that were intelligently interviewing with impartiality- often with a darkened backdrop with ciggie plumes providing a mystical special effect. Nowadays my exposure to TV is reading closed captions whilst donating plasma. That is about 30 min a week. The old line about believing half of what you seen is defunct. Everything has an agenda and the new currency is attention. The biggest challenge for Australia is population and economic decline which is being accelerated by the government at the behest of global financial interests.
100
Best misinformation filter?
The government.
If it comes through the government it’s been filtered.
They are unwittingly doing us a favor,
Making it clear what not to believe.
That’s how we knew early on that it came from a lab and it was neither safe or effective.
50
Even worse is that enforcement of these Laws will devolve to the unelected bureaucrats at
Australian Communications and Media Authority
20
Is the solution to this proposed law as simple as writing, “The following comments are satire”, at the front of all our writings?
Imagine the uproar if even a judge had to admit that the label made it satire. Alternatively, imagine if the judge denied the statement. Would that show that it was in fact satire, (to make the opening statement), if so, on which line of the comment did the satire end?
This is a law designed for the ‘thought police’ to interpret. And we already have a fair idea on who those kinds of laws will prosecute and who will receive a free pass. As an example, do you remember the woman arrested for silent prayer in front of an abortion clinic in the UK? She was charged for silently praying. A thought crime?
If the law is to pass, then any future candidate who stands on the premise of removing this law will likely win. That needs to be a declared stance on the part of all those who claim to be for the people. If not, then they don’t deserve your vote.
And any elected official who thinks this is needed should have to explain exactly why it is needed and then explain how the government can still be held to account. Surely the law is designed to stop the questioning of the government, if that’s not the path to a dictatorship, then what is it?
30
extracts of my submission:
1. Definition of Misinformation and Disinformation (s13(1)(a) & s13(2)(a)):
“contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive”.
Information or data will often permit the drawing of a range of reasonable (plausible or probable) inferences. The material may, in other words, “reasonably admit[] of different conclusions” This is notoriously the case in matters of public discourse which routinely involve uncertain or conflicting narratives. What is “reasonably verifiable” may thus be open to an alternate and equally reasonable or plausible interpretation. A reasonable opinion should not be classified as misinformation or disinformation merely because a government authority or entity backed by government authority takes a different view.
4. Excepted Classes: Excluded Dissemination (s16)
The meaning of “excluded dissemination” includes “reasonable dissemination of content for any academic, artistic, scientific or religious purpose.” Or in other words: dissemination of “academic, artistic, scientific or religious” is subject to discretionary overview for what is “reasonable”.
5. Authoritative Sources (Explanatory Memorandum p14)
The Explanatory Memorandum states “those who believed misinformation had ‘lower levels of trust in doctors, health officials and other authoritative sources’” (p14). A key point here is what actually constitutes “authoritative sources”. There is a distinction between epistemic authority (knowing) and administrative authority (power). A source is not epistemically authoritative merely because the government says it is. Conversely, a source does not lack epistemic authority because the government says it is not authoritative in that respect. Knowledge is predicated on argument and rational inference from evidence, not the brute authority of government say so.
6. Free Speech: Sufficient Precision
The Explanatory Memorandum (p19) indicates that for restriction of freedom of speech to be permissible, three conditions must be satisfied. One of these (“first limb”) is that the restriction must be “provided by law” and that law “formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly” (p19).
The Explanatory Memorandum then states that “the first limb of the test (requiring that restrictions be provided by law) is satisfied because “the measures set out in Schedule 9 are either prescribed in the Schedule itself, or will be prescribed in digital platform rules, approved misinformation codes or misinformation standards” (p19).
This, however, does not address whether the law has been “formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly”. As noted above, the standard of “reasonably verifiable” means that what is misinformation or disinformation may be open to alternate and equally reasonable or plausible interpretations. It follows that even if an individual makes a reasonable or plausible inference that something is the case it may still be classified as misinformation because it is open to an alternate interpretation. The law thus provides no sufficient guide “to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct”.
Moreover, it would appear there is nothing to require that “digital platform rules, approved misinformation codes or misinformation standards” be drafted with “sufficient precision” (noting again, that the parent legislation is itself ambiguous on that point).
7. The right to Participate in Public Affairs (Explanatory Memorandum 19)
The Bill severely circumscribes the right to participate in public affairs by limiting the public’s ability to freely and openly discuss matters.
8. Harm to Public Health (Explanatory Memorandum 19)
The government suppressing opinions of qualified experts on matters of health because they do not agree with government narrative is likely to cause serious detriment to public health.
Conclusion
This Bill violates the basic axiom that in a free country the people – not the government – decide what is true. It must therefore be rejected.
20
I notice none of the resident Leftists have posted anything on this topic.
Are they too ashamed to state their position in front of the thinking community?
20
At this time of day they’re all sleeping under their rocks or parents basements.
They’ll red thumb later this morning.
10
Monday polly joke
https://youtube.com/shorts/31VWCjfUPfA?si=5TjBgTZONfgQoVFs
Enjoy it while you can.
10
Once (even more censorship than we already have) becomes entrenched, it becomes very difficult to undo it.
That’s because people don’t even know what’s being censored or even if something is bring censored.
Such societies eventually become a nation of mindless drones as we see in North Korea.
We already see early signs of this with extreme un-Australian compliance with the world’s most draconian lockup laws as we had in Australia, and also decades of the products of the Marxified and dumbed-down education/indoctrination system.
00
00
It’s too bad none of Australia’s politicians (with one handful of exceptions) ever studied or understood history.
00