The Federal Government’s Misinformation Bill is Inconsistent with Human Rights By James Reed
A great post by one of our favourite journalists, Rebekah Barnett (if you have some spare money, subscribe to her blog to support young Aussie independent journalists). Human rights lawyer peter Fam cuts to the chase in criticism of the government’s new mis-and disinformation Bill. The Bill, proposes to allow the Australian Media and Communications Authority (ACMA) to create and enforce industry standards for the internet, forcing platforms under pains of massive fines, to censor content that the government does not like. Thus, all the debate about the Covid mandates, lockdowns and vax injuries would have been suppressed if the Bill was in as law. I would expect that all the other evils that the Labor Party has instore including the Voice referendum, and inevitable treaty, will also be dealt with in this way.
At the bottom of this article are some things you can do to oppose it, including a link to the government site where you can put in a letter of protest and opposition. Hopefully someone like Elon Musk will get moving and challenge this Bill in the High Court of Australia. From this point on, let us call the Labor Party, the Evil Party.
https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/australian-governments-misinfo-bill
““It’s inconsistent with human rights.”
That’s how human rights lawyer Peter Fam describes the Australian Government’s proposed new legislation to combat mis- and disinformation.
The bill outlines new powers that will allow the Australian Media and Communications Authority (ACMA) to create and enforce new industry standards for digital platforms, to compel platforms share information with ACMA, and to compel them to implement stronger systems and processes for handling of mis- and disinformation.
In a joint submission to the government with Australians for Science and Freedom (ASF), Fam describes the new bill as, “a poorly drafted piece of proposed legislation” that poses a threat to the rights of free expression, self-determination, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
“Do we want a Government department to have the power to impose civil and criminal penalties on users of the internet if they publish something that the Government doesn't like?” asks Fam, of Sydney law firm Maat’s Method.
“That is what the ACMA bill would allow, and we think it proposes an unacceptable and contemptible breach of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.”
Fam and ASF argue that the bill places unacceptable restrictions on individuals posting content online, while excusing government and the press from the same standards. This is likely to result in a chilling effect on online speech, says Fam.
Moreover, the vague definitions offered in the bill for ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘serious harm’ makes enforcement of the proposed laws inherently subjective. This will inevitably end up in the courts, to the benefit of lawyers and the powerful, but to the detriment of everyone else.
“Only people with enough time, resources and energy will be able to contest ACMA’s decisions in court. It’s going to clog up the legal system with lots of cases arguing over what these terms mean,” says Fam.
As this bill does not exist in a vaccuum, it’s important to understand that Australia does not have strong protections for human rights, Fam explains. “There is a serious lack of statutory and constitutional protection for freedom of speech in Australia - in fact, there is a general dearth of human rights protections.”
Fam draws a comparison with the US constitution. “The main difference between US and Australian constitutions is that the US constitution enshrines human rights front and centre. The Australian constitution isn’t designed to protect our rights, it’s designed to implement a structure of governance.”
“It is a matter of context. The US constitution was drawn up in the context of a revolution. Our system of governance was drawn up in the context of a prison colony; prison officers dealing with convicts. In many ways, our system of legislation and governance reflects that.”
That the rights of Australians are not already strongly protected in law means that Australians ought to be very careful about allowing the implementation of new legislation that poses a threat to those rights, warns Fam.
“There is no need to allow Government even greater ability to impose on our rights and freedoms than they already have. If we do, we may find ourselves unable to challenge them.”
The submission makes 14 recommendations which are included at the end of this post. Fam and ASF conclude in strong terms,
“As it stands, we fundamentally and vehemently oppose this Bill. If such law is allowed to pass, it will not only signal the death knell of the internet as a free marketplace of ideas in Australia, but it will signal to Australian citizens, and to citizens of the globe, that the Australian Government seeks total control of the dissemination of information within its borders, and that such control is more valuable to that Government than the individual rights of its citizenry. That would be a dark day for democracy indeed, were such a thing to pass.”
What can you do?
Share this sumbmission to educate people about the proposed misinformation laws. (PDF version attached at the end of this post).
You can also share this article I wrote for Umbrella News outlining concerns raised by a media academic and Senator Alex Antic.”
Here is the link to Rebekah’s article, and the government website to make a submission. It does not need to be fancy, put it in your own words, be polite, but express strong opposition to the Bill on free speech grounds:
Comments