Australia's champion MP, one of a few, Russell Broadbent fighting for our freedom of speech while the Health Minister openly lies. THE MAD BILL.
The government's Mis/Disinformation Bill is dangerous and marks the beginning of the end for free speech and democracy in our nation. Make no mistake, this Bill is unprecedented, unjust, unacceptable
‘Keeping the B……s Honest’ is the most challenging assignment in the Australian Parliament.
STOP THE MAD (Misinformation And Disinformation) BILL
The government's Mis/Disinformation Bill is dangerous and marks the beginning of the end for free speech and democracy in our nation. Make no mistake, this Bill is unprecedented, unjust, unacceptable, unconscionable and un-Australian.
Mark Butler-Minister for Health
We lost our democracy when ‘They’ locked us down and stopped our doctors from telling us about the deadly dangers of the experimental mRNA Vaccines.
The proposed misinformation and disinformation bills before the Australian Parliament—part of a broader initiative to regulate online content—have garnered significant attention. These bills, such as the ‘Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023’, seek to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to impose regulations on digital platforms to address so-called harmful misinformation and disinformation. While the intent is to protect the public from false information that they claim could damage democracy, public health, or safety, these proposals have faced considerable critique. Below is a detailed critique of the bills:
1. One of the primary concerns with the proposed legislation is the broad and vague definitions of "misinformation" and "disinformation." According to the bill:
“Misinformation” is defined as false or misleading information that is not intended to deceive but could cause harm.
“Disinformation” refers to false information spread with the intent to deceive.
The ambiguity of these definitions poses a risk for both overreach and misuse. For example, subjective interpretations of "harm" will extend to legitimate discussions or controversial opinions. This vagueness will lead to the silencing of dissenting viewpoints or criticism, especially in matters involving health-care, science, politics, or public policy.
I argue that these bills could discourage public debate, where differing opinions are crucial for the evolution of ideas. In dynamic areas like medicine or politics, knowledge evolves, and what may initially seem like misinformation may later be validated. There is a real concern that the enforcement of such legislation could stifle healthy discourse and scientific inquiry.
2. Another significant critique relates to freedom of speech. Although the bill claims to respect the right to free expression, its broad scope means that the government or regulatory bodies will mot likely, directly or indirectly, limit what people can say online. This has raised alarm about censorship, especially given that Australia's constitution does not explicitly protect free speech as strongly as in countries like the United States.
The regulation of what constitutes acceptable information could lead to the censorship of minority views or voices that challenge mainstream narratives. While the intent might be to prevent harm, the result could be a chilling effect on freedom of expression and democracy. Many civil liberties groups and legal scholars are concerned that giving a regulatory body the power to determine truth will, I believe, lead to state-controlled narratives.
3. The bill’s provision for ACMA to oversee and regulate misinformation and disinformation raises questions about political neutrality. Governments, regardless of their political leanings, always have incentives to suppress information that is politically inconvenient or critical of their policies. This becomes particularly dangerous during election cycles or in the context of controversial issues like compulsory medication and vaccination, climate change, immigration, or public health measures.
I want to warn that the implementation of such regulations could lead to partisan enforcement. The temptation to silence opposition parties or dissenting voices through accusations of misinformation or disinformation will always undermine democratic processes. This gives the government excessive power over digital platforms, using them as tools to silence criticism.
4. Another critique is the lack of robust safeguards or oversight mechanisms to ensure that the regulators themselves are held accountable, unaccountability being a behaviour typical of the current bunch of bureaucrats. The bill grants considerable power to ACMA to develop and enforce industry codes but offers little in terms of checks and balances to prevent overreach or unjust enforcement.
Without adequate transparency, the public has little recourse if legitimate information or discussions are suppressed under the guise of combatting misinformation. Independent oversight bodies or judicial reviews could mitigate some of these concerns, but such measures are not adequately outlined in the current bill. Independent oversight bodies would certainly not be trusted by the average Aussie.
5. Digital platforms, especially smaller ones, may find it challenging to comply with these regulations. The bill places significant burdens on platforms to monitor, remove, and report misinformation and disinformation, including implementing robust fact-checking processes. Larger platforms like Google or Facebook are able to absorb these costs, but smaller startups or independent platforms would struggle, potentially stifling innovation and competition. There is also a concern about the use of automated tools and artificial intelligence to detect misinformation. These technologies are prone to errors and biases, which could lead to legitimate content being removed or flagged, further undermining free expression.
6. I also argue that it could have unintended consequences, such as driving misinformation underground. If people feel they are being censored or that their views are not welcome on mainstream platforms, they will turn to less regulated or more fringe platforms where misinformation could proliferate unchecked. Additionally, the regulation of misinformation will erode public trust in the very institutions trying to protect them. If people believe that only state-sanctioned information is allowed, they may become extremely distrustful of the government and mainstream media, which fuels conspiracy theories and polarise a harmed society further.
7. Several countries have implemented similar laws with mixed results. For example, in Germany, the ‘Network Enforcement Act’ (NetzDG) has led to overblocking of content, with platforms erring on the side of caution and removing legitimate content to avoid hefty fines. In Singapore, the ‘Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act’ (POFMA) has been criticised for being used to target political opponents and suppress dissent.
Australia should consider the lessons learned from these countries. Regulation of online content is full of pitfalls. It is not necessary. Rather than granting broad powers to a single regulator, a more nuanced, transparent, and balanced approach could better protect both the public and the principles of free expression in a democratic society.
State censorship is the removal of freedom of speech and another step towards totalitarianism.
Ian Brighthope
If we lose free speech, which is the objective, we will lose all our freedoms.
Bret Weinstein, in a recent Rogan podcast, made the point that the US forefathers strategically made free speech the first amendment and owning and a gun the second amendment, because they knew what tyranny was.
If free speech is taken, then guns would be required!
We don’t have a first amendment, nor do we have guns, and unfortunately most have no idea of the inverted totalitarianism that subverting our freedoms.
The Australian government and associated universities are playing their part to centralise power, at the expense of our civil liberties.
Look at Nazi WEF Stamer's Britain ,the Police come knocking on your Door if they don't like your Social Media Posts