September 13, 2024
New proposed laws targeting online misinformation have been slammed as a “chilling assault” on the freedom of speech of Australians, with critics claiming the laws could capture “any difference of opinion”.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland introduced the legislation to Parliament on Thursday, claiming misinformation and disinformation pose a “serious threat” to Australian’s “safety and wellbeing” as well as “our democracy, society and economy”.
The Albanese government was forced to abandon a previous draft version of the laws after they were widely condemned by everyone from media organisations and tech companies to civil liberties groups and even the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Minister Rowland said the government had listened to the feedback and the new legislation had been revised to "carefully balance the public interest in combatting seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation with the freedom of expression that is so fundamental to our democracy".
But critics are already lining up to attack the bill, with the Institute of Public Affairs describing the legislation as “the single biggest attack on freedom of speech in Australia’s peacetime history”.
“Misinformation legislation introduced into federal parliament today represents a chilling assault on every Australian’s right to free speech. The new Bill broadens provisions to censor speech, which even the government’s fatally flawed first draft did not include,” said John Storey, the Director of Law and Policy at the IPA.
Free Speech Union of Australia also slammed the legislation, telling SkyNews.com.au the legislation was an “attack on our freedoms”.
“Despite the outpouring of public concern last time around, the Government has still failed to address the key issues with it,” Free Speech Union of Australia Co-Director Dr Reuben Kirkham said.
Like the previous draft, the new laws would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to impose massive fines – up to 5 per cent of global revenue – on social media platforms that fail to adequately crack down on misinformation and disinformation on their platforms.
ACMA will also be given new powers to approve enforceable industry codes for dealing with misinformation and disinformation, or make standards itself, if it deems platforms have failed to address the issue through self-regulation.
The bill appears to narrow the scope of what can be captured to content that is “verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive” and “reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm”.
The government has also responded to some criticism by excluding “reasonable dissemination of content for any academic, artistic, scientific or religious purpose”, removing the exemption for government-authorised content.
But according to Dr Kirkham, the revisions fail to protect free speech.
“How does anyone decide if the content contains information that is ‘reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive' - it is as clear as mud. It also still gives ACMA extraordinary powers to make codes,” the Co-Director of Free Speech Union of Australia told SkyNews.com.au.
According to the an analysis by the IPA, there are still three fundamental flaws with the new legislation.
Chief among these flaws is that the new definition of ‘serious harm’ has been broadened and could now potentially capture "any difference of opinion”.
“The federal government has not listened to the concerns about free speech raised by mainstream Australians. Instead, they are… actually broadening the censorship powers of ACMA, such as introducing by stealth a change to the definition of ‘harm’ to include ‘vilification’,” Mr Storey said.
The analysis also found that due to its definition of ‘misinformation’, the bill would create “legal powers for politically biased fact-checkers to determine what is true and false".
While the bill would also create an “unelected and unaccountable star chamber bureaucracy” with the power to launch investigations and hearings to ensure compliance with censorship guidelines.
“The big tech companies will become the censorship and enforcement arm of the federal government to shut down debate and speech that it disagrees with,” the IPA’s Director of Law and Policy said.
“Under these laws even the truth will be no defence. If a citizen were to disseminate information which was factually true, but ACMA or a fact checker labelled it ‘misleading’ or ‘deceptive’ because it ‘lacked context’, then that information would fall within the scope of these laws."
Minister Rowland said on Thursday that the Albanese government was “committed to keeping Australians safe online” that has the legislation would ensure “ACMA has powers it needs to hold digital platforms to account for misinformation and disinformation on their services.”
However the government faces an uphill battle to get the legislation through parliament.
Speaking to Sky News Australia on Thursday morning, shadow home affairs minister James Paterson said that while the opposition had not yet seen the legislation, if it “in any way resembles the first draft of their misinformation laws” then they would oppose it.
“Our starting point is extreme scepticism,” Senator Paterson said.
“Let's remember that the first draft was opposed by the Human Rights Commission, civil liberties groups, religious groups, media organisations, the social media companies themselves. It was an utterly friendless bill.”
The Liberal Senator said what worried him was the bill reportedly included a requirement for social media companies to determine “what is true and what is false” and to decide what is and what is not censored.
“That's a deeply disturbing thing because we know that in recent times they got those things wrong on many occasions. Australians legitimately held political beliefs should not be censored by either the government, or by foreign social media platforms,” Senator Paterson said.
“I think we're going to get ourselves into a very dangerous state of affairs if we allow, for example, during an election campaign, a American or Chinese headquartered social media platform decide what Australians can and cannot hear from political candidates and political parties.
“We always have to have a strong bias for free speech. Australians have the right to hear competing arguments and to make up their own minds. And censoring them and censoring their legitimate sincerely held beliefs is not the answer.”
