25 October 2024

Conservative think tanks says most Aussies stand against proposed misinformation laws

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
36
front of bill

Limiting the spread of misinformation online is becoming a battle for the Federal Government. Image: IPA.

Most Australians are concerned proposed new misinformation laws will be used against them for political gain, according to new polling commissioned by conservative think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Recently introduced to parliament, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 aims to reduce the spread of seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms.

It introduces transparency requirements for certain digital communications platforms, including obligations to publish information on risk management actions, media literacy plans and complaints processes.

But according to the Parliamentary Business website, “it is unclear if the bill will operate in a manner compatible with Australia’s international human rights obligations related to freedom of expression.

“The definitions of misinformation and disinformation create some uncertainty as to the breadth of content captured,” the website states.

The legislation also gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) bolstered powers to create digital platform rules requiring platforms to “report and keep records on certain matters” related to misinformation and disinformation.

IPA deputy executive director Daniel Wild said Australians had an issue with the proposed new laws, with polling data from independent marketing research firm Dynata indicating most Aussies believed they were an assault on freedom of speech.

“Australians are clear eyed about the censorship threat the Federal Government’s proposed misinformation laws pose, with two-thirds concerned it will be used for political purposes to silence the opinion of mainstream Australians,” Mr Wild said.

“The Federal Government’s misinformation laws are the biggest assault on freedom of speech in Australia’s peacetime history and are designed specifically to shut down debate online.

“The revised legislation represents a chilling assault on every Australian’s right to free speech. The new bill broadens provisions to censor speech, which even the government’s fatally flawed first draft did not include.”

READ ALSO I love public servants but I’m mean to them over Robodebt, says Canberra Writers Festival guest author

The research found:

  • 65 per cent of Australians said they were concerned misinformation laws would be used by government officials for political purposes;
  • 69 per cent of Australians said they were concerned misinformation laws would be used by social media companies for political purposes;
  • 45 per cent believed free speech should be protected, even if this meant wrong, inaccurate, or false information was published;
  • Young Australians were most opposed to the government’s proposed online censorship laws, with the majority of Australians aged 18-34 believing freedom of speech should be protected online.

The survey also established that while Australians believed misinformation was a problem, 53 per cent believed censorship would cause more problems than it solved, while 17 per cent wanted more censorship.

The legislation provides ACMA with a graduated set of powers to develop and register enforceable industry misinformation codes and standards.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry with a reporting date of 25 November 2024.

The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised concerns with the legislation.

READ ALSO What’s the deal with this Assistant Minister and his transcripts?

When introducing the bill to Federal Parliament, Communications Minister Michell Rowland said it was a Labor priority to act on keeping Australians safe from the harms of misinformation.

“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy. Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option,” Ms Rowland said.

“The government is committed to keeping Australians safe online, and that includes ensuring the ACMA has the powers it needs to hold digital platforms to account for misinformation and disinformation on their services.

“Following public consultation on the draft bill last year, revisions have been made that carefully balance the public interest in combatting seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation with the freedom of expression that is so fundamental to our democracy.

“These revisions reflect that feedback and I look forward to seeing the bill become law as we combat the threat of misinformation and disinformation.”

The Federal Government revved up its action to combat online disinformation following the dissemination of false information during recent by-elections and the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum.

Join the conversation

36
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The Ministry of Truth…ha, ha, trust us, we will decide for you what is misinformation and disinformation. We should all be worried. We do not live in China or North Korea…well, we never used to.

So what exactly is misinformation and disinformation, anything the Labor Government disagrees with? And of course, the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation is the Albanese Labor government which is exempt from this bill. Absolute hypocrites this Labor Government is.

The proposed bill threatens the human rights of Australians, including freedom of expression, privacy and due process.

The broad definitions and sweeping powers granted to the minister and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) could result in overreach, undermining democratic principles and leading to arbitrary enforcement

Granting government authorities and digital platforms the power to control the flow of information is a step towards authoritarianism. Australians should be trusted to decide what is true or false, without interference from the state.

Master_Bates8:42 pm 28 Oct 24

So…. in a world where politicians are on the record discussing the differences between Core promisses and Non Core promisses, as well as declining to pass truth in electoral advertising laws, how would these be applied…..

It’s all well and good to discuss misinformation, but what happens when it’s from the lips of our own PM?

Misinformation laws would be applied selectively. To some, who share the fashionable correct-think views, such a two-tier approach to banning political discourse is most welcome, because it’s a way to cancel all viewpoints except for their own.

The dopes that support this kind of thing lack the forethought to consider that the government may not always be of the side they like. Are they going to be so supportive when Dutton becomes PM with a majority government behind him and declares “more than two genders” misinformation? Or “climate change” misinformation? You’d have to be an idiot not to see the danger in this.

Brian Edwards3:30 pm 28 Oct 24

The IPA, hahahaha. The source of misinformation itself. As credible as a 3 dollar note. Nothing to see here.

correct speech first, then free speech, to whatever extent correct speech allows for it. Anything else would have free speech as a mere unjustified assertion.
Given that correct speech must belong to realm of absolute truths – anything else being a contradiction of itself – and given that it’s the right that should be interested in conserving these truths, correct speech simply has no business being determined by the admittedly progressive and inherently relativistic left (which can in some instances include the liberal right), making Labor’s attempt to do so a complete inversion of reality. A more damning indictment against Labor’s censorship plans does not exist. And I haven’t forgotten that it was Morrison and Littleproud who got the ball rolling (without any knowledge of or any intention to protect actual correct speech)

“correct” in the eyes of whom, Vasily M? What authority will you cite?

The government repeatedly shows itself to be the biggest source of misinformation and no one ever gets held accountable for being wrong. When was the last time a minister was forced to resign due to violating the ministerial code of conduct?

HiddenDragon8:07 pm 27 Oct 24

This looks like yet another half-smart effort from a government which has been misreading its mandate since election night in 2022.

It follows the long-established formula of creating and empowering an ostensibly impartial public interest bureaucracy which actually serves a partisan purpose and is staffed accordingly.

That strategy normally flies below the political radar of most voters, but this one won’t, and has the prospect of driving a wedge between authoritarian and libertarian progressives – which would not be helpful for a government already on the slide.

It’s probably just as well that this is unlikely to become law before 20 January 2025 – dumping it or watering it down to the point that it would be tolerable to Elon Musk could be a handy bargaining chip/concession for Albanese in a first uncomfortable conversation with the individual who is looking more likely than not to be the next occupant of the Oval Office.

privatepublic6:25 pm 27 Oct 24

It’s dangerous for any government of any persuasion to say what’s right or wrong. I gather the legislation is due to the Covid vaccination. In relation to tested and FDA/TGA approved medication most people will inoculate themselves and family against a variety of conditions. Someone online who says the flu shot is no good or whatever for the most part should be able to convey their view without prosecution. We can make our own minds up.

Years ago I befriended any Iraqi during the first Gulf War. I asked him how do you know what the truth may be when reading the state sponsored newspapers, he replied that Iraqis read this in between the lines.

I do not longer read/watch the ABC or Sky and other Australian news media for many years, for the exception of the Riot Act due to the comments section.
However if you watch both and feel your way in between the truth may be there. Having said that at least Sky news has comments enabled and when I last looked out of interest there were views for and against for the subject at hand. The ABC do not have comments enabled for the most part.

Podcasts and news left/right and centre with comments on can provide a idea where the people are on a particular subject. And no, Bots with lots of logins generally do not carry much weight, plus they never reply, that is one way to detect a bot.

The Joe Rogan Trump sit-down garnered 25 and counting million views and 381k comments on YouTube. My kids tell me the actual site that has Rogan garnered a little less.

Moral to the story is look at the facts on either side and make your mind up. That is not the function of Government.

“… for any government of any persuasion to say what’s right or wrong.”

They already do.

They always have.

All governments, all persuasions, all societies, always.

And none of this affects the fact you should consider facts (assuming you are competent to discover them) and make up your own mind using whatever mental tools are within your capability..

Why do people have so much difficulty with basic social concepts? No wonder discussion is difficult.

privatepublic3:11 pm 28 Oct 24

One would hope most people are competent.

“… for any government of any persuasion to say what’s right or wrong.”

They already do.

They always have.

All governments, all persuasions, all societies, always.” Yes, they do from Cicero to Biden, legislating is not the way to go in the interim until fully explored further in committee as the US are currently going through. Below is the Australian Law Council view.

“11. The Law Council is aware of concerns that the practical effect of the Draft Bill in seeking to combat misinformation and disinformation may be a problematic incursion on the right of freedom of expression.16

12. Restrictions on freedom of expression should not be made lightly. The right to freedom of expression is a democratic ideal that encourages informed decision making. General Comment No 34 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee highlights the importance of freedom of expression in underpinning democratic society:

Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the
full development of the person. They are essential for any society. They constitute the
foundation stone for every free and democratic society. The two freedoms are
closely related, with freedom of expression providing the vehicle for the exchange
and development of opinions. Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the
realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn,
essential for the promotion and protection of human rights.17”

“And none of this affects the fact you should consider facts (assuming you are competent to discover them) and make up your own mind using whatever mental tools are within your capability.” Like my first statements, we agree.

Discussion is difficult for you perhaps; you have my sympathies. Good to have variable views. Politeness is important regardless of one’s views. I have disagreed with you in the past while always being polite.

privatepublic3:16 pm 28 Oct 24

One would hope most people are competent.

“… for any government of any persuasion to say what’s right or wrong.”

They already do.

They always have.

All governments, all persuasions, all societies, always.” Yes, they do from Cicero to Biden, legislating is not the way to go in the interim until fully explored further in committee as the US are currently going through. Below is the Australian Law Council view.

“11. The Law Council is aware of concerns that the practical effect of the Draft Bill in seeking to combat misinformation and disinformation may be a problematic incursion on the right of freedom of expression.16

12. Restrictions on freedom of expression should not be made lightly. The right to freedom of expression is a democratic ideal that encourages informed decision making. General Comment No 34 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee highlights the importance of freedom of expression in underpinning democratic society:

“Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the
full development of the person. They are essential for any society. They constitute the
foundation stone for every free and democratic society. The two freedoms are
closely related, with freedom of expression providing the vehicle for the exchange
and development of opinions. Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the
realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn,
essential for the promotion and protection of human rights.17”

“And none of this affects the fact you should consider facts (assuming you are competent to discover them) and make up your own mind using whatever mental tools are within your capability.” Like my first statements, we agree.

Discussion is difficult for you perhaps; you have my sympathies. It’s healthy to have variable views when debating. Politeness is important regardless of one’s views. I have disagreed with you in the past while always being polite.

Yes, I hope people are competent too.

Given you have agreed with me on the reality, I wonder the point of the rest? It seemed pretty self-evident. I have already noted here in another thread that I had read the Law Council submission on the draft legislation.

Your final paragraph appears to misunderstand mine. My point was that without recognition of reality and of core assumptions then any discussion of anything will be difficult regardless of any other good faith intent. You surely see unreality right here in this thread where I need hardly quote examples

@privatepublic
“you should consider facts (assuming you are competent to discover them) and make up your own mind using whatever mental tools are within your capability.”

Unfortunately there is no impost on public figures to present verifiable facts, and as such the general public may not actually realise what they are consuming and considering – particularly when their regular information diet, is disseminated via unchallenged social media.

I doubt that this legislation will prevent such social media discourse from continuing to promulgate myths as facts.

Master_Bates8:54 pm 28 Oct 24

The problem with research in the context of social media, is that everybody (me included) operate in a bubble of like minded individuals with similar thoughts. Most people are incapable of performing actual research… I.e going to a university library, getting 20 articles on a subject, and reading. Instead we all turn to our friends group and ask.

The problem with social media is that it’s now designed to cause harm. Comments and articles and opinions filter to the top of a search list based on interaction scores… not accuracy scores…

This also has to be examined in the context of state sponsored actors. Take the USA and the whole Trump thing…. there was a time when a president would have been in front of a court if they interacted personally with a Russian leader… now it’s accepted… we know that the Russian and the Chinese are actively influencing politics… they always have.. now, with the help of social media their disinformation campaigns ate beautifull

Only a totalitarian government would come up with this. Wait ….

The questions betray the bias involved in this survey.

If you are a political lobby group (like the IPA) always design the questions for the answers you want. This is it:
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/IPA-Poll-Attitudes-towards-the-federal-governments-proposed-misinformation-laws-October-2024.pdf

Consider how those questions might have been asked from an opposite bias, e.g. imagine a poll designed by the Greens to ask renters their opinion on a rent freeze. Would it be neutral? The one presented by the IPA is a travesty more generally known as push-polling.

“…think tank” …yes it is, for the LNP. They are running scared because they will have to tell the truth as well!

Obviously the IPA numbers are the result of a survey that pushed respondents towards particular answers by the way they were framed and the context they were put in. Also it unlikely to be at all representative of wider public opinion as it is more likely that majority of Australians don’t car or know about the issue, let alone know of the existence of the ACMA.

The IPA, a 100% Liberal RW “think tank”, funded by billionaires like Gina Rinehart who also funds Advance Australia, one of the biggest sources of misinformation about the Voice Referendum. I’m fairly certain that, any polling done for them is just as biased, by being targeted to achieve the wanted results. They’re also the primary source of what passes as policies for the Liberal Party, all of which were evident in the previous government.

It would be safe to say that, this “poll” is as accurate about what Australians think, as Sky After Dark’s reporting in a fair and balanced manner.

Phil O'Brien11:30 am 26 Oct 24

Of course the IPA would say that. Their whole business is about spreading misinformation.

People are against it because having the government decide what “misinformation and disinformation” is, only happens in authoritarian dictatorships. The bill is an actual danger to a democratic and free society.

If Trump wins the White house it will be in no small part due to his biblical use of lies and mis-information. Unfortunately there are many people out there who fall prey to these lies and deliberate use of mis-information. Outright lies have no place in politics or religion.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.