Anthony Albanese’s plan to censor your personal opinions – if they differ from his – has some eerie parallels with George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Like the Ministry of Truth in the novel, Labour’s ominously titled ‘Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill’ gives civil servants the responsibility of deciding what constitutes truth and lies.
But instead of rewriting books and history, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will need to have the power to decide what false information is about Facebook.
Should this bill pass, a Big Brother government agency would monitor your social media musings and determine if they are acceptable.
This would mean censoring views that conflict with government policy.
The parameters are also highly subjective, giving “thought police” bureaucrats more room to abuse their powers.
The plan to criminalize ‘harming the operation or integrity of an election or referendum process in Australia’ could have resulted in individuals being sanctioned for campaigning against the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament last year if they claimed that there was misconduct on the part of the Australian government. Election Commission.
Anthony Albanese’s plan to censor your personal opinions – if they differ from his – has some eerie parallels to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four
Citizens concerned about the lack of ballot boxes would be charged even if there was evidence that the vote counters were not doing their job properly.
The bill also contains ridiculously subjective provisions such as ‘imminent harm to the Australian economy’.
An economist or entrepreneur who expresses concern about high inflation or the prospect of further interest rate increases — discouraging consumer spending — could potentially be in violation, even if the law does not target commentators.
Someone concerned about Australia’s high levels of immigration and multiculturalism could potentially be breaking the law if they defame a group of people on the basis of race or religion.
This includes raising concerns about trans women competing in women’s sports, as ‘gender identity’ is covered by this bill – making it possible for the regulator to impose sanctions based on their interpretation of the definition of a woman.
Another offense would be causing ‘harm to public health in Australia, including to the effectiveness of preventive health measures’.
Covid vaccination mandate and lockdown skeptics would have broken the law if they had publicly expressed their anger on social media.
People like pregnant Ballarat woman Zoe Buhler – who was arrested at her home in September 2020 for writing a Facebook post opposing Victoria’s lockdowns – are also believed to have faced stiff sentences.
People like Ballarat mother Zoe Buhler, who was arrested at her home in September 2020 for writing a Facebook post opposing Victoria’s lockdowns, are also believed to have faced stiff sentences
The Labor bill proposes maximum penalties of $7.825 million for companies and $1.565 million in fines for individuals, according to an analysis by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers.
This could lead to people going to jail as few of us could pay a fine equivalent to the price of a house in Sydney.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland used the word “harmful” no fewer than six times in a parliamentary speech claiming the government was out to protect people from themselves.
“The rapid spread of seriously harmful mis- and disinformation poses a significant challenge to the functioning of societies around the world,” she warned in September.
She even used an Orwellian “doublespeak” phrase – “freedom of expression” – to somehow suggest that the government’s plan was about tackling information that was “misleading or deceptive and reasonably likely to cause or be likely to cause serious harm” would contribute’.
Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sydney, told a Senate hearing this week that reliance on government fact-checkers was a problem, arguing that giving ACMA the power to “investigate to do’ made them the arbiters of misinformation.
“If they are relied upon to censor large amounts of commentary on certain controversial issues, that would be deeply problematic,” she said.
‘You can be quite selective in the experts you choose – [for] On any political issue, you can find experts on both sides.”
Professor Twomey added that Labor’s bill could see people censored simply for expressing accurate views – and not just false information – that are not in line with government policy.
“Once you go beyond what is demonstrably untrue in terms of things like claims and opinions expressed during an electoral process, and we say that the electoral process is undermined when people are told things that could mislead them, then you’re right: enter the political world. communication and that’s where the thing will fall over,” she said.
‘The problem for me is that when I… [first] When I read the bill, I thought, “Oh, that’s OK,” because it refers to things that are demonstrably untrue.
‘But when I read the explanation, I see something completely different. To me, that confusion is where the constitutional problem comes into play where possible.’
Although the Australian Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech like America’s First Amendment, the Supreme Court has upheld freedom of political communication.
The Coalition opposes this bill, but if it ends up in the Senate with the support of the Greens and left-wing independents, only a successful Supreme Court challenge will stop Australians from having their freedom taken away.
The government argues that the bill only requires social media companies to maintain registers on misinformation and disinformation, rather than giving ACMA the direct power to demand content be removed.
But Prof Twomey fears it could ‘all go very wrong’ – even if ACMA doesn’t have the final say and it’s left to the social media giants to decide what is disinformation.
“We are creating worse problems through widespread censorship of controversial views and undermining democracy in the name of cleansing disinformation,” she said.
She pointed out that the bill goes beyond just targeting scam ads or messages that are clearly false.
“We’re dealing with opinions, commentary and claims – you can’t prove those things to be untrue,” Professor Twomey said.
‘You cannot prove that someone’s opinion is false; it’s an opinion.’
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland used the word ‘harmful’ no fewer than six times in a parliamentary speech, claiming the government was focused on protecting people from themselves
Labor claims that social media giants are spreading misinformation and misinformation, but if that is the case it is hypocritical of the party to spend such large sums on advertising on Facebook.
Data from Meta shows that the Australian Labor Party has spent $3,079,270 on Facebook ads since August 2020 – more than triple the Liberal Party’s $955,838.
The Australian Electoral Commission has also spent $2,348,227 over the past four years – apparently on a platform that the government says cannot be trusted not to interfere in elections.
The AEC is far from the only federal government agency spending heavily on Facebook ads: the Ministry of Social Services spends $1,475,379, the Ministry of Agriculture $910,487 and the Ministry of Health and Aged Care $511,386.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, ‘two and two makes five’, with Big Brother watching you and determining the truth. It’s a world where ‘ignorance is strength’ and ‘war is peace’ – and privileged party elites decide what ordinary people, or ‘proles’, are allowed to know.
Orwell, a socialist and war correspondent, saw the dangers of a totalitarian state.
Labour’s Misinformation and Disinformation Bill is the only thing that needs to be cancelled, not freedom of speech.