Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024
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.
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
3 comments
Login here Register here-
Clakka -
Pete Petrass -
Andrew Smith
Return to home pageEveryone 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.