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.