On 19 September 2024, the Senate referred the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 25 November 2024.
Submissions close on the 30 September 2024 (Monday).
Critics argue the bill will limit free speech and give the government too much power to censor information. Concerns have been raised about who gets to define what constitutes misinformation or disinformation, and what is considered harmful.
There is heaps of information being published out there via social media. However, as yet there does not appear to be anything much substantial published or covered via Australian media sources.
Based on the details provided in the explanatory memorandum, there are several potential problems and concerns for the media regarding this bill:
Broad Scope and Definitions
1. The definitions of “misinformation” and “disinformation” are quite broad and could potentially encompass legitimate journalistic content. While the bill claims to exclude professional news, the boundaries between professional and non-professional content are increasingly blurred in the digital age.
2. The concept of “serious harm” is also broadly defined, including vague notions like “harm to public health” or “imminent harm to the Australian economy”. This ambiguity could lead to overzealous enforcement or self-censorship.
Potential for Censorship
1. Although the bill states it does not empower ACMA to directly regulate content, the threat of penalties could lead digital platforms to err on the side of caution and remove or suppress legitimate media content.
2. The bill’s focus on “verifiably false” information could potentially stifle reporting on developing stories where facts are not yet fully established.
Impact on Free Speech
1. The bill’s limitations on freedom of expression, while acknowledged, could have a chilling effect on public discourse and investigative journalism.
2. The power given to ACMA to approve industry codes and determine standards could indirectly influence editorial decisions and content strategies of media organizations.
Transparency and Oversight Concerns
1. While the bill includes some oversight mechanisms, such as parliamentary scrutiny of ACMA-approved codes, there are concerns about the concentration of power in a government agency to determine what constitutes misinformation.
2. The requirement for digital platforms to assess and report on misinformation risks could potentially expose journalistic sources or methods.
Critical Analysis
The bill attempts to address a genuine problem of online misinformation, but its approach raises significant concerns for press freedom and independent journalism:
1. The broad definitions and scope could lead to overreach, potentially affecting legitimate reporting on controversial or developing issues.
2. The emphasis on platform responsibility could result in excessive content moderation, impacting the distribution of news and opinion pieces.
3. While the bill includes some safeguards, such as exemptions for satire and academic content, the overall framework could still have a chilling effect on free expression and press freedom.
4. The bill’s focus on digital platforms overlooks the complexity of modern information ecosystems and could disproportionately affect smaller, independent media outlets.
5. The potential for government influence over content moderation practices raises concerns about indirect censorship and political interference in the media landscape.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to address a legitimate issue, in its current form presents significant risks to media freedom and could have unintended consequences for journalism and public discourse in Australia.
Govt website reference link.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Everyone knows there’s problems and a need, and swing this way and that depending on their current state of confirmation bias. Objectivity is harder and harder to find, the more there’s access to a broader and longer view of history. ‘Balancing the books’ by comparing the past with now is likely to always be troublesome. Limiting reportage to the events and decisions of the past few months might have folks paying more attention.
Speeches and books should perhaps be left alone, as they can be ascribed to named person(s).
For formal education, maybe all lessons and materials could be required to put the full spectrum of views.
Sounds like an epistemological and semantics nightmare
Misinformation and disinformation can be both lumped into one word – LIES. This is what drives the MSM, blatant lies, particularly when it concerns politics. Making everyone tell the truth is not censorship, it does not hinder free speech, it just provides information which allows the population to make an informed decision. It is not the job of the press to make THEIR decision and foist it upon us, their job is to provide the information for us to make a decision. And this IS the point of Murdoch, to CONTROL all of the decisions so he gets what he wants. It is all about power, you kiss Murdoch’s arsse and he will promote your ageenda. And even then Murdoch will reserve the right to still screw you over if he so deems. It is just that simple. In particular the Murdoch press is an absolute scourge on the global media landscape and to any form of democracy, and he needs to be shut down.
PP agree, in plain sight and one of the more significant issues in Australia with RW MSM and some others producing disinfo to misinform more ageing &/or low info voters, who dominate for now, especially regions.
Diet of wedge issues around xenophobia and culture wars, to benefit the far right, fossil fuels and white Christian nationalist culture embedded by white Oz.
On related topic, I notice that last night AIMN admin flushed away an article.
Dunno if it was due to managerial distaste at the site being used as a platform for aiding the Trump campaign to benefit V Putin’s agenda, editorial unease over directions taken in subsequent commentary, or other factors entirely.
Whatever the cause, it’d be dishonest of me to say that I disapprove of the decision.
cb, I made the decision to remove it.
It’s OK for admin to say we don’t tell people what to write about but as a moderator I draw the line if the article is damaging the reputation of this site.
Personally, however, I had no issues with the article even though I furiously disagreed with it.
It certainly attracted discussion, but most of it was criticism of the author. When debate revolves around the messenger and not the message, is it worth keeping the article up?
All good, Roswell, it’s not my house, I’m just loitering in the foyer, waiting for the rains to subside so I can go run some rapids.
Regarding reputation, although the AIMN has shifted in tone over the last decade, and become something of an ecological dead zone, it is still a good place to learn about the unjust persecution of Alex Jones, the hideous dangers posed by Taylor Swift, and the reasons why curfewing a housecat to prevent it from slaughtering local wildlife actually constitutes a form of “tortuous enslavement”.
Be well bruvva.
Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill.First thing you need to do is look past the smoke and mirrors.This has nothing to do with Misinformation or Disinformation,this is a bill to give full protection to our cheating lying corrupt politicians and there backers,they dont want any scrutiny that exposes there sheer incompetence.They lie to get into office and they lie in office,if there was to be a law they also should be accountable for the lies they feed us,the corruption is mind boggling,i sometimes think im living in America,mind you they do play a big part in our politics,especially when it comes to sucking billions out of hard working Aussies,and our governments happy to give it away,to there future employers.We go from one election to the next and always end up with the same shit,nothing is going to change until these bluggers are held accountable for there words and actions with real justice for there criminal actions,when a bill like that comes along,then just maybe there might be some transparency
Frank, agreed with your comment until the last part about the Bill might lead to “some transparency”.
My reading is the Misinfo-Disinfo Bill exempts all govt and all legacy media, ie, the biggest liars in the land are exempt.
I prefer freedom of speech for all of us, not just the parasite classes.
Without social media exposing corruption across the board we’d be living a Soviet or CCP lifestyle today.
Thank goodness for venues such as AIMN to share views.
I might not agree with all said here but sharing all voices is part of an evolving society.
Without freedom of speech we are all effectively slaves to those pushing the official narrative.
PS, I don’t trust Dutton to not misuse any powers that fall into the hands of the LNP the day Labor gets voted out.
cb, my apologies if my comment came across as being directed at you. This certainly wasn’t the case, or the intention.
Roswell, It didn’t, and your proffered apology is entirely unnecessary.
Nonetheless, bar sarcasm in tone, my observations regarding this site are genuine in origin and intent, especially regarding increasing externalisation of ecology .
On another thread, there are strident demands from a serial contributor that I provide empirical evidence that the concept of “environmental sustainability” isn’t merely a fossil-fueled smokescreen for religious racism and far-right extremism.
Not exactly my idea of a productive dialogue exchange.
Taking a break of indefinite duration, might see you on the other side.
Till whenever, corvus.
Who is GoDaddy? It just refused my comment. It seems the law is already active, and no doubt AI will catch the necessary trigger words. Well the post has gone through and been placed this time so OK. Do you think that changing the term to C-OVID slightly was enough to fix the problem? Who knows? Who can guess? Particularly if using AI to detect inappropriate words is the first method used to analyse incorrect ideas
We have just gone through a period where one person’s lie is another’s obvious truth, and where dissenting views have been shut down, that is, the arguments about COVID and the controls that were put in place, and the experimental injections that were pushed to the entire population, so I am horrified that there is wide acceptance of the need for this bill. Ignoring for a moment the rights and wrongs of the C-OVID situation / argument, which would be that heroic actions were needed to stop a virulent disease, we saw everything from individuals being ridiculed to highly qualified medical professionals being threatened with having their registration removed if they did not slavishly conform to a particular level of correctness. While some people stood up against mandatory vaccination and lost their jobs, the overwhelming majority wanted to conform with the official line. This Bill threatens freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and freedom of thought. I might be wrong, but I should still be able to put forward my arguments. To me, the glory of social media in particular, is that it gives a platform to alternative views including incorrect ones. Most people have a functional BS meter, and the ability to decide if something is true, false or needing more evidence. That it is being decided that we need extra laws or a special body to protect perfectly capable people from being mis/dis-informed, is the biggest grab for power ever. Orwell’s Ministry of Truth is no longer fiction.