The proposal foreshadows the imposition of an obligation on digital platforms to police “misinformation” and “disinformation.” This is a term commonly used to justify a pervasive form of Big Brother governance that restricts the right of citizens to criticise government decisions.
The definition of “misinformation” under the proposal is so broad that it could capture many statements made by Australians in the context of legitimate political debate.
The proposed legislation gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) extraordinary powers that would enable it to require any Australian to appear at a time and place of its choosing to answer questions about misinformation or disinformation. Heavy fines would apply for non-attendance.
This will lead to digital companies self-censoring the views of Australians to avoid the risk of massive fines.
The ACMA will also be able to gather information from digital platform providers, request the industry develop a code of practice covering measures to combat so-called misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, and allow the ACMA to create and enforce an industry.
In this context, the proposed provisions put the communications and lives of human rights defenders and journalists at constant risk.
Not surprisingly, the content issued by the government can’t be considered misinformation under the law proposal, but criticisms of the government by ordinary citizens can.
Health and Vaccines
Of course, many Australians are now starting to find out that “health experts” handpicked by the Australian government failed to raise enough concerns about the lack of efficacy and dangerous side effects of mRNA vaccines.The official government narrative about the safety of vaccines was based on research conducted by pharmaceutical companies selling these experimental vaccines.
At the beginning of the vaccination rollout on Feb. 21, 2021, the Australian government worked with social media companies to censor anyone who dared to question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including doctors who disagreed with official health information.
Deregistering doctors who provided vaccine exemptions or prescribed ivermectin to treat COVID-19 was especially egregious.
Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM, a clinical immunologist said despite patients showing “impressive results” when treated with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) shut down their prescription.
Climate Change
And let’s not forget that the proposed “misinformation” legislation will be also about strengthening the enforcement of the official narrative around the “settled science” of “global warming.”Indeed, the Bill’s Exposure Draft lists “harm to the Australian environment” as one of the various opinions to be classified as worthy of banning.
Among the signatories of the Declaration are two Nobel laureates—physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American.
Together with other renowned scientists who signed the World Climate Declaration, they point out that Earth’s climate has varied as long as it has existed. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, “Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming,” they say.
“There is no climate emergency,” says the Declaration, and carbon dioxide is “essential” to all life on earth and is “favourable” for nature.
According to Professor David Bellamy OBE, an eminent botanist and conservationist in the United Kingdom, “Far from being a pollutant, carbon dioxide is the most important airborne fertiliser in the world.”
However, the belief that carbon dioxide emissions are heating up the earth’s atmosphere to a catastrophic degree has been afforded the status of incontestable faith. Australian politicians have even created a government minister for “climate change,” absurdly suggesting that they can influence the weather!
Arguably, illiberal politicians may have a vested interest in creating a “climate crisis” in order to sell their own solution, namely big government.
Be that as it may, the Australian government is committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and reducing these emissions by 43 percent below 2005 levels in the next seven years. In addition, every Australian state has also set interim emissions reduction targets by 2030.
Under this “misinformation” legislation, any honest and robust debate on the desirability of climate change policies will be effectively outlawed.
Censoring Public Debate
Other concerns with the proposed “misinformation” legislation include the possibility of suspending the activities of internet companies in Australia if they fail to comply with the obligations created, as well as increased criminal penalties for libel and defamation, which are incompatible with international human rights standards.This will stimulate a concentrated digital environment by imposing burdensome obligations on internet application providers, encourage censorship and have concerning effects on online expression through surveillance and the wide criminalisation of discourse.
Above all, no government department or social media outlet should have the power to determine what is and is not “misinformation.”
Of course, Ms. Finlay is absolutely correct. Hence, in its 12-page recent submission to the Law Council, the Victorian Bar argues that “the bill’s interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services.”
In this sense, the proposed “misinformation” legislation undermines the implied freedom of political communication derived from the Australian Constitution.
The text and structure of the Constitution, and particularly its system of democratic government, gives rise to an implication that there must be the freedom for citizens to discuss any political matter. By taking away our freedom of political communication, the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill is constitutionally invalid, and Australians must demand that their politicians reject such an appalling law proposal in all its entirety.
