“To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a mechanical act,” wrote George Orwell in his famous novel 1984.
1984 was published 75 years ago. If Orwell was writing today, he may have written: “To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a legislative act.”
On Thursday, federal communications minister, Michelle Rowland, tabled the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, more commonly known as the “Misinformation and Disinformation Bill.”
Running at over 70 pages in length, the legislation is complex, which is not a good thing when its goal is to outline the circumstances in which a government bureaucracy is allowed to restrict the freedom of speech.
From my review of the legislation, it empowers the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to make rules for social media platforms and other online publishers around so-called misinformation and disinformation, which is any information “reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive” that is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to “serious harm.”
It’s not clear who at ACMA gets to decide if information is “reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive,” but if it is similar to those used as government-funded ABC “fact checkers,” then we can be certain that “misinformation and disinformation” will simply be anything that does not accord with the prevailing progressive ideology of the day.
As for what the legislation means by serious harm, it includes everything from election interference to harming the efficacy of preventative health measures in Australia (read: vaccines) to racial, religious or LGBT vilification.
In this instance, I imagine “serious harm” will be in the eye of the beholder and certain types of information will be more susceptible to censorship than others.
There are some exceptions to the reach of the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. “Reasonable” religious, academic, artistic and scientific speech are okay, as is reporting of the news by “professional” media organisations. But again, the decision about what is reasonable is also subjective and it might be that the sharing of religious views might be deemed to be unreasonable—Israel Folau, anyone?
The ACMA rules will be able to dictate how online platforms manage risk, create records and handle complaints, as well as ensuring its users are able to identify misinformation and disinformation. ACMA will also be able to demand the production of certain records from online platforms as well.
Those who fail to comply can be fined or ordered to take remedial action, including removing or clarifying supposed “misinformation or disinformation.”
Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating for the dissemination of falsehoods. I take the commandments seriously and don’t think people should tell lies or even half-truths.
But the problem with the government’s approach is that it goes way beyond truth and lies, but about an arbitrary judgment by faceless bureaucrats of what is or isn’t true or what is or isn’t harmful.
For example, I’m sure that during the COVID pandemic, any posts that warned of the health risks of vaccines would have been deemed “misinformation” that could cause serious harm and deleted. However, we know that fatal blood clots were a very rare but very real side effect of the jab and the benefit of hindsight has proved those who were raising the alarm to be accurate.
Or take another example. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has already ordered the removal of social media posts by breastfeeding counsellor Jasmin Sussex that expressed the view that only women can breastfeed and that men who believed they could were “delusional,” because such posts are in breach of Australian law. How much more debate around gender ideology will be removed from online if this law passes parliament?
It’s dangerous to allow government bureaucracies to make decisions about which types of information are true, safe and reasonable and to ban the rest. One of the key things that protects a society from tyranny is the free flow of information and the ability of anyone to speak their mind. Once that is taken away, it won’t be easier to distinguish truth from lies, but it will be harder to distinguish truth from the “approved narrative.”
The best way to ensure that misinformation and disinformation is not spread is not to try to censor it or threaten publishers with civil sanctions, but to constantly speak the truth and share it with as many people as possible.