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.
Like the novel’s Ministry of Truth, Labor’s ominously-titled ‘Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill’ is putting public servants in charge of deciding what’s truth and lies.
But instead of rewriting books and history, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will have to power to decide what’s false information on Facebook.
Should this bill get through, a Big Brother government agency would monitor your musings on social media and determine if they are acceptable.
That would mean censoring views deemed to be at odds with government policy.
The parameters are also very subjective, giving ‘thought police’ bureaucrats more scope to abuse their powers.
The plan to make it an offence to bring ‘harm to the operation or integrity of an electoral or referendum process in Australia’ could have seen individuals sanctioned for campaigning last year against the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament if they alleged misconduct on the part of the Australian Electoral 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 missing ballot boxes would face charges, even there was evidence about vote counters not doing their job properly.
The bill also includes ridiculously subjective provisions like ‘imminent harm to the Australian economy’.
An economist or entrepreneur expressing concern about high inflation or the prospect of more interest rate rises – therefore discouraging consumer spending – could potentially be in breach even if the law isn’t targeting commentators.
Someone concerned about high immigration levels and multiculturalism in Australia could potentially be breaking the law if they vilified a group of people on the grounds of race or religion.
So could expressing concerns about trans women competing in women’s sport because ‘gender identity’ is covered under this bill – making it possible the regulator could impose sanctions based on their interpretation of the definition of a woman.
Another offence would be causing ‘harm to public health in Australia including to the efficacy of preventive health measures’.
Covid vaccination mandate and lockdown sceptics would have fallen foul of the law if they publicly expressed their anger on social media.
The likes of pregnant Ballarat woman Zoe Buhler – arrested at her house in September 2020 for writing a Facebook post opposing Victoria’s lockdowns – would have also faced severe penalties.
The likes of Ballarat mum Zoe Buhler, arrested at her house in September 2020 for writing a Facebook post opposing Victoria’s lockdowns, would have also faced severe penalties
Labor’s bill proposes maximum penalties of $7.825million for corporations and $1.565million fines for individuals, an analysis by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers said.
This could see people end up in jail as few of us would be able to pay a fine that’s equivalent to the price of a Sydney house.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland used the words ‘harm’ or ‘harmful’ no less than 14 times in a parliamentary speech claiming the government was about protecting 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 speech’ – to somehow suggest the government plan was about tackling information that was ‘misleading or deceptive and reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm’.
Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sydney, this week told a Senate hearing that relying on government fact-checkers was a problem, arguing that giving ACMA the power to ‘conduct investigations’ made them the arbiter of misinformation.
‘If they are relied upon to censor vast swathes of comment on particular contentious matters, that would be very problematic,’ she said.
‘You can be quite selective about the experts you choose – [for] any political issue, you can find experts on both sides.’
Professor Twomey added Labor’s bill could have people censored simply for expressing accurate views – and not just false information – that didn’t accord with government policies.
‘Once you get beyond what’s verifiably untrue to things like claims and opinions that are made during an election process, and we say the electoral process is undermined if people are told things that might mislead them, then you’re right splat, bang into political communication and that’s where the thing will fall over,’ she said.
‘The problem for me is that when I [first] read the bill, I thought, “Oh, it’s okay,” because it’s referring to things that are verifiably false.
‘But when I read the explanatory memorandum, I’m seeing something completely different. That confusion for me is where potentially the constitutional problem comes in.’
While the Australian Constitution doesn’t guarantee freedom of speech like the First Amendment in America, the High Court has upheld the freedom of political communication.
The Coalition is opposed to this bill but if it gets up in the Senate with the support of the Greens and left-leaning independents, only a successful High Court challenge will protect Australians from having their freedom taken away.
The government argues its bill only requires social media companies to keep records 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 final say and it’s left up to social media giants to decide what constitutes misinformation.
‘We create worse problems through large scale censorship of contested views and the undermining of democracy in the name of cleansing it from misinformation,’ she said.
She pointed out the bill goes beyond just targeting scam ads or posts that are obviously false.
‘We’re dealing with opinions and commentary and claims – you can’t prove those things are false,’ Professor Twomey said.
‘You can’t prove someone’s opinion is false – it’s an opinion.’
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland used the word ‘harmful’ no less than six times in a parliamentary speech claiming the government was about protecting people from themselves
Labor claims that social media giants are spreading misinformation and disinformation – but if that’s the case, it’s hypocritical for the party to be spending such large sums on advertising with Facebook.
Data from Meta shows 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 during the past four years – apparently on a platform the government says can’t be trusted not to interfere with elections.
The AEC is far from the only federal government agency to spend big on Facebook ads with the Department of Social Services splurging $1,475,379, the Department of Agriculture spending $910,487 and Department of Health and Aged Care stumping up $511,386.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, ‘two and two make five’ with Big Brother watching you and deciding the truth. It’s a world where ‘ignorance is strength’ and ‘war is peace’ – and privileged party elites decide what everyday people, or ‘proles’, are allowed to know.
Orwell, a socialist and war correspondent, saw the dangers of a totalitarian state.
Labor’s misinformation and disinformation bill is the only thing that should be cancelled, not free speech.
***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk