You have to love the irony of politicians – who let’s face it they mislead for a living – wanting to push through new ‘misinformation laws’ that don’t apply to them, but do to the average Australian.
While the political class can continue to speak freely, including in parliament – excluded from the new laws – and spread false narratives that serve their purposes whenever they want, the rest of society risks being put before a specially convened chamber of stars. are dragged to prove their innocence when accused. of spreading untruths.
The “one rule for us, another rule for the rest of you” nature of this newly proposed labor law does not end there.
The country’s elite also receive special exemptions from this legislation that limits freedom of expression.
Academics and artists can say things that you may not be allowed to respond to under the bill.
They could target something you said or did and your right of reply would be limited by law, forcing you to sit quietly while they dismantle you or an issue close to your heart.
It is a shocking example of suppressing the dissent of the masses and protecting the elites.
Normally, I would consider attributing the perverse outcomes of this poorly drafted legislation to the well-trodden “law of unintended consequences.”
Anthony Albanese’s government is proposing a new ‘misinformation’ law
Human rights groups are concerned that the proposed legislation could restrict freedom of expression (a protester is pictured in Sydney in November 2021)
In other words, good intentions that sometimes accidentally lead to bad results.
However, this legislation is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. There is nothing unintended in the results this will lead to. I believe the design of these proposed laws is deliberate.
This Labor government wants to suppress the freedom of speech of the masses because it does not respect or tolerate the opinions of the mainstream.
In the same way that the Prime Minister, for example, looked down on any Australian who opposed his vote in Parliament. Proponents during that debate frequently accused opponents of being guided by racism rather than honest concerns about the wording of what was being proposed.
These new anti-disinformation laws are nothing less than an attempt to prevent average voters from expressing opinions that might challenge the vision of the woke establishment, or that might adopt the increasingly stifling nature of political correctness in this country.
Australia already has little protection for freedom of expression. An implicit political freedom of expression in the interpretation of the constitution, but no bill that enshrines this principle.
Yet here we are, bearing witness to a government that proactively seeks to further restrict freedom of expression through new laws that can be subjectively applied to some but not others.
No wonder the opposition is opposing it and civil liberties advocates are raising the alarm.
Adding to the dysfunction, this government is in an unnecessary rush to legislate the new laws, demanding that they be passed by Parliament this side of the New Year.
What is the urgency? Is it a coincidence that they are re-elected shortly afterwards? Will these laws help Labor stop commentary critical of its performance?
These are valid, yet unanswered questions.
No one wants hate speech or offensive rhetoric to permeate online, let alone if it is also defamatory in nature.
So in principle there is nothing wrong with trying to expand existing laws to prevent such behavior.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland would be given far-reaching powers under the proposed laws
However, this bill goes much further than that.
It even gives the then Communications Minister extraordinary powers to personally order hearings or investigations into disinformation.
It sounds more like a storyline for a documentary about the Stasi regime in East Germany during the Cold War than a new set of rules that Labor is seriously advocating in the 21st century.
The biggest problem with restricting political commentary that could be classified as disinformation is the highly subjective nature of making such assessments.
Both left and right often claim that their political opponents are spreading lies. Imagine giving a minister the power to endlessly investigate his opponents under the protection of such a new law.
The film 1984 may be an oldie, but its relevance is increasing as the political class tries to restrict rights in the way this new law is intended.
We therefore end where we started: the irony of every politician who twists and distorts the facts for a living to propose new ‘misinformation laws’ that apply to the rest of us but not to them is hypocrisy in spades.
However, the extreme lack of self-awareness in doing so means that Labor will not even realize how hypocritical they are in advocating this new law.