Hadn’t paid too much attention to this bill as the main critics seemed firmly of the cooker/conspiracist class.

 

From my comrades at the Australian Christian Lobby

I have however, enjoyed the querulous fears of religious entities. Obviously, their spurious mythology, involving fantastical creation stories, zombies, virgin births and other unevidenced miracles will soon cease to be published once this Bill has passed.¹

As Catherine Sheehan points out (on the soon-to-be defunct website of the Archdiocese of Hobart) there is “No exemption for religious organisations in Government censorship bill”.

This is clearly to the public good and will see an enormous cost-saving in subsidies and tax exemptions as these organisations based on disinformation wither and die.

This staggering figure from 2010: “…the sector is expanding so rapidly that $31 billion a year is now being drawn out of the federal Budget in tax exemptions to the ever-growing list of groups claiming church and charity status” – Taxpayers support lavish Hillsong lifestyle – Adam Shand – The Sunday Telegraph

Not to say this Bill didn’t concern me, just wasn’t at the top of my list. Then my union sent an email outlining their concerns and a link to their submission. Turns out there are aspects of this Bill that are not so commendable.

This email (and some comments by our Glorious Leader) have galvanised this normally meek observer of political events to speak out.

 

“Anthony Albanese reveals he would ban social media and abolish the states if he ever became dictator” – Source

“Reveals” is the operative word.

“Responding to Mitchell’s hypothetical about what he would do if he was running Australia as a dictator, Mr Albanese said banning social media ‘would be handy’.”

“‘Keyboard warriors who can anonymously say anything at all and without any fear; the sort of things they would never say to you face-to-face, they can just assert as fact and it worries me,’ he said.”

You have laid down quite the challenge Mr Albanese – expect some response in public from those “keyboard warriors”.

Anonymity protects whistleblowers (“Albo” won’t) – Women fleeing domestic violence – Anti-fascists who don’t want Nazis pounding on their front door – People like myself, who are harrassed at work or even prevented from gaining employment due to their political opinions, etc…

Albanese’s brain-fade is based on privilege, and a fear of the truths that cut through the spin “Albo’s” (exempted) media mates disseminate.

Under “Albo’s” hypothetical dictatorship everyone would be banned. Probably not the wisest statement from a man accused of autocracy and an unwillingness to listen to even his own rank and file. It’s no surprise to learn he considers Dutton a ‘decent bloke’.

“Albanese has indicated this week that when it comes to laws that undermine citizen’s freedoms, he’d prefer to continue down that same path and collaborate with opposition leader Dutton on those matters.” – F#*k the Greenslide: Albanese Gets into Bed with Dutton on National Security by Paul Gregoire – Sydney Criminal Lawyers

“Albo’s” dream of silencing dissent from the masses was not well received – not even by his staunchest supporters.

 

 

One has to admire “Albo’s” impeccable bad timing as his government attempts to enact legislation to curtail his pet hate.

“Albo’s” minders must despair sometimes.

 

Bill exempts the main purveyors of misinformation and disinformation

The Bill excludes “professional media” and electoral and referendum content. As well as content produced by or authorised by, respectively, educational institutions and governments.

It’s strange, because there was a whole lot more concern from the Labor government about the media (particularly Murdoch) being biased and running politicised campaigns when they were in opposition…

…well at least until the far more Murdoch-friendly Albanese captured the Labor throne.

“Not wishing to stoke more conflict, Labor leader Anthony Albanese doesn’t support a media royal commission. Kevin Rudd’s royal commission push hits a nerve”. – Kevin Rudd’s royal commission push hits a nerve – Aaron Patrick – AFR

“Labor is set to oppose a new bill that would establish a royal commission into the Murdoch media empire in favour of pursuing legislative reform. A spokesperson for Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the government has “been consistent” in saying a royal commission is “not the way forward” for media policy in Australia”. Labor set to oppose Greens’ plea to establish a Murdoch royal commission – John Buckley – Crikey

We’d have to assume Labor’s meetings with Murdoch’s henchpeople before the election ended in a mutually beneficial arrangement, that precluded any attempts to check their political bias.

 

 

Government excludes itself from new disinformation law

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the ultimate decision maker as to what constitutes “misinformation” and “disinformation”. ACMA is an independent Commonwealth statutory authority whose expertise in discerning what comprises “misinformation” and “disinformation” is (somewhat boldly) being questioned in the MEAA’s submission. Doubt we’ll be hearing much from the MEAA once the ACMA get rolling.

Personally, I believe ACMA’s new powers will be a perfect fit in our new militarist, political landscape as we prepare to take on the growing power of Oceania. A Ministry of Truth being about the only thing missing from the dystopian novel we are all living in now.

 

 MEAA

Federal Government legislation to curb online misinformation and disinformation

MEAA submission on misinformation and disinformation

 

Extracts from MEAA submission

In combatting misinformation and disinformation, it is important to achieve a balance between protecting the public from serious harm from misinformation and disinformation and ensuring fundamental rights and freedoms are protected.

ACMA’s proposed powers would enable it to:
• gather information from, or require digital platform providers to keep certain records
about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation;

• request industry develop a code of practice covering measures to combat
misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which ACMA could register
and enforce; and

• create and enforce an industry standard (a stronger form of regulation), should a
code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and
disinformation on digital platforms.

It is unclear to us whether ACMA has, or will have, the resources and expertise to determine
what constitutes “misinformation” and what does not.

 

Serious Harm

The proposed powers will only apply to misinformation and disinformation that is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to “serious harm.”
The types of harm are captured by the legislation, including harm to the health of Australians, and hatred against a group based on ethnicity, nationality, race, gender and the like.

While many of the harms listed under Schedule 1, section 2 (“harm”) are vague and overly broad (e.g. subclause (e) – “harm to the Australian environment”), subclause “(b) disruption of public order or society in Australia” is particularly concerning.

MEAA believes the inclusion of this “harm” is dangerous and open to misuse and exploitation. Indeed, there is a long history of important social movements being considered “disruptive” by governments and powerful interests.

 

Scope

The scope of the proposed legislation is wide, only excluding content produced in good faith for the purposes of entertainment, satire or parody, and professional news content as well as content produced by or authorised by, respectively, educational institutions and governments.

While professional news content is excluded, it is essential in maintaining and renewing trust in the media that news organisations be transparent about their stances on issues, and ensure their own ethical codes and complaints procedures (including how they deal with misinformation/disinformation) are easily accessible to consumers.

MEAA suggests that the proposed definition “professional news content” in the Bill be amended to specifically refer to adherence to MEAA’s Journalist Code of Ethics.

MEAA believes the exclusion of content produced by federal, state, territory or local governments is concerning. It is simply unreasonable that the view of governments be protected from the reach of this Bill’s definition of “misinformation” and paves the way for government to politicise valid criticisms of it while engaging in misinformation of its own.

It is also unclear why the code and standard-making powers will not apply to authorised electoral and referendum content.

Disinformation and misinformation in these forms of information has the capacity to contribute to the undermining of our democratic institutions. By way of a current example, “Yes” and “No” vote documents are being distributed to voters by the AEC as part of the Voice to Parliament referendum process without any independent fact-checking. It’s almost certain those documents will be posted on digital platforms, but the creators (politicians and bureaucrats) would be exempt from the provisions of the proposed law.

 

Conclusion

MEAA believes the Australian Government has a responsibility to combat the very real problem of misinformation and disinformation. It is essential that digital platforms be accountable for the often deliberately misleading or fabricated information online. These lies undermine legitimate reporting and news organisations and the public’s faith in democratic institutions.

However, we are concerned about the breadth of the legislation, particularly around what constitutes “serious harm” as well as the scope of the Bill, and the protections around freedom of speech.

Consequently, MEAA believes the Bill as currently drafted requires appropriate amendments for it to properly realise is aims.

Source

 

Notes

¹ Some of that satire exempted from this Bill. Praise be!  🙂

“Albo” loves religious orgs, happily giving them free money to ensure they stay on side. Labor Party set to ditch support for “secular” public education – Si Gladman – Rationalist Society of Australia

He supports their right to discriminate as well, “Anthony Albanese has reiterated that Labor will respect religious schools’ right to select staff based on faith, after widespread backlash from religious groups to a proposal to limit their hiring and firing powers.” – PM reaffirms commitment to allow religious schools to hire staff based on faith – Paul Karp – The Guardian

“The Albanese Government has promised private schools $70.2 billion over the forward estimates, $1.7 billion more than Scott Morrison guaranteed in his pre-election budget. The private school sector will now receive an even greater share of Commonwealth funding under Labor than it would have under the Coalition.” – Labor’s private school cash splash Morrison throwback – Mirage News

 

Related

Labor urged to include news outlets in social media crackdown to curb ‘dangerous’ misinformation

 

 

“Albo” is not so keen on this religious group.