As someone once said, “There are always two ways of looking at things!” which could be considered misinformation because sometimes there are more than two ways of looking at things. However, the recent proposal by the Labor government to introduce misinformation laws has some people a little concerned.

I have to say right at the outset that I do understand that concern. After all, one person’s misinformation is another party’s electoral platform.

On a side note, I do find it interesting that it’s Advance Australia that have announced their opposition to any misinformation laws. After all, they were heavily involved in the “No” to the Voice campaign. Surely there’s no connection there.

The big problem with misinformation laws is quite simple: Who decides what’s misinformation?

While it’s easy to use that concern to conjure up images of 1984 and totalitarian regimes using it to crack down on dissent, the reality would be less dangerous. Political parties would be unlikely to use it against their opponents unless they were certain of a successful prosecution. Why give your opponent all the publicity that a court case would involve only to have your case was dismissed because you failed to prove that calling you a lying scoundrel wasn’t misinformation.

Furthermore, it’s highly unlikely that Fred from Ferntree Gully’s post on the platform that used to be known as Twitter telling us that Bob Hawke was a Martian would be the subject of a major court case. In the unlikely event that he were prosecuted, it wouldn’t be the government deciding on the case but a judge and/or jury. Under such circumstances, Fred would be able to defend himself by producing all the evidence and when he produced a Martian birth certificate in Bob Hawke’s name then, not only would he be found not guilty, but his trial would have helped him to spread the truth. (Ok, I don’t actually think that Bob Hawke was a Martian, but I’m happy to consider any evidence without calling it misinformation.)

In many cases, a political party would decide that rather than trying to use misinformation laws to suppress something they know to be true, they decide that they’re better off ignoring it and hoping that nobody pays any attention to the claim. You may have heard of the Streisand effect where an attempt to suppress information has the opposite effect by drawing attention to it. This effect is named after Barbra whose attempt to stop people taking photos of her clifftop house led more people to be aware of the photos of her house. You can see the photo here. but please don’t look because Barbra wants it private. I can’t give you any more recent Australian examples here because a number of high-profile people decided to sue people rather than take this onboard.

Of course the other major concern is when does something cease to be a difference of opinion and became misinformation?

Obviously there are areas where there are professional differences and it’s generally accepted that a number of theories are plausible and, within reasonable limits, nobody has a right to shut down alternative points of view. Economists, scientists, educationalist, doctors and whole range of professions accept that people have other ideas and that they have a right to express them no matter how wrong they are when everyone should just accept that what I am saying is an incontrovertible fact and the others have been brainwashed or misled.

While professional differences are fine, there does come a point where you can clearly say that something is misinformation. For example, if I put a sign on an office which says: “Doctor Rossleigh – I can treat whatever ails you!”, one might ask where I got my medical training. If I were to reply that I had none, you’d be tempted ask what I studied in order to get my Ph.D. When I say that I’ve simply changed my name to “Doctor”, you can see that I am attempting to deliberately mislead and, as such, I could be liable for prosecution under a whole range of laws that already exist.

When it comes to misinformation laws we also have the problem of things which are factually correct but suggest something other than actual events. For example, if you say that Gerry got a Covid injection and died two days later, it might be relevant to add the fact that he was hit by truck crossing the road, so any inference that it was related to his choice to get vaccinated is drawing a very long bow… (Yes, yes, I know that Craig Kelly will tell you that it was probably the injection that caused him to cross the road without looking…)

Anyway, while thinking about all the problems of misinformation laws and how they’re going to turn us all into a Communist state, I suddenly had this obvious thought about the stock exchange.

Publicly listed companies have all sorts of rules about disclosure and timely reporting. If I tell the stock exchange that I’m in discussions with Warren Buffet about a potential merger, there’ll be requirements that I keep investors updated and I’ll be expected to publish the email from Mr Buffett which says: “Stop emailing me, you snivelling little toad, I’m not interested in your company!”

And I need to keep the exchange updated about the company’s financial situation, letting everyone know that profits are likely to be down owing to our decision to put Scott Morrison on the board. (Obviously I’m joking. No company is silly enough to employ Morrison… even the Liberal Party sacked him from Tourism Australia… Mm, makes one wonder how they could have chosen him over Dutton… Makes one wonder how bad they must have thought Dutton would be as PM)

Of course this doesn’t mean that no company has ever engaged in insider trading or tried to mislead the public; it simply means that if they’re found to be doing that, then there are legal consequences.

The point is that if we can have laws that prevent companies from peddling misinformation to the ASX, why is it such a threat to hold political entities to the same standards?