Critics warn about new Albanese government’s proposed law: ‘It’s a harm’
- Replies 22
In an age where the digital landscape is constantly evolving, governments worldwide are grappling with balancing public safety and individual freedoms.
The rise of online misinformation has brought fresh challenges to the forefront, the Albanese government's proposed legislation to combat misinformation and disinformation online has sparked a heated debate across the nation.
However, critics have raised the alarm about potential threats to freedom of expression and the very foundations of Australian democracy.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which is intended to protect online users from the spread of false information, has been met with staunch opposition from various quarters, including the Coalition, religious groups, and even the human rights commissioner.
They argued that the bill could inadvertently ‘undermine democracy’ by stifling free speech and the natural evolution of knowledge.
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has been particularly vocal, with researcher Elizabeth Taylor expressing concerns about the bill.
‘One of our concerns about this Bill is that it has the potential to stifle the processes through which knowledge moves on,' she said.
'The misinformation of today may be proven to be correct tomorrow,' she stated.
Michelle Pearse, ACL's Chief Executive, has criticised the bill's provisions on religious vilification, calling them ‘an over-reaction to censor contrary opinions’.
Melbourne Archbishop Peter A Comensoli echoed this sentiment, saying, 'The legislation itself does not deal with this in any articulate way…the issue around who would be making judgments around what is truthful, what is fact, not so much the content itself.’
'The platforms themselves have bias.'
Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, has called for 'greater transparency, accountability, and scrutiny mechanisms' within the legislation.
She warned that the bill's broad definitions could blur the lines between harmful misinformation and disinformation, leading to ‘behavioural content that we don't like'.
'We don't feel the Bill in its current form strikes that right balance in terms of the protections that it provides, particularly for freedom of expression,' she said.
‘That's a harm that we say is very real based on the current drafting of the legislation, but it's a harm that's actually very hard to measure because we simply don't know to what extent that self-censorship might occur.’
Despite these concerns, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant has supported the bill, emphasising the need for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to have enhanced powers to demand transparency from digital platforms.
'We can't have accountability without meaningful transparency,' she said.
'My experience having worked 22 years in the technology industry, and now almost eight years as (commissioner), (is) we absolutely need powers to compel very specific answers to specific questions around what they are and are not doing.'
What do you think of this story, members? Let us know in the comments below!
The rise of online misinformation has brought fresh challenges to the forefront, the Albanese government's proposed legislation to combat misinformation and disinformation online has sparked a heated debate across the nation.
However, critics have raised the alarm about potential threats to freedom of expression and the very foundations of Australian democracy.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which is intended to protect online users from the spread of false information, has been met with staunch opposition from various quarters, including the Coalition, religious groups, and even the human rights commissioner.
They argued that the bill could inadvertently ‘undermine democracy’ by stifling free speech and the natural evolution of knowledge.
Several groups have warned about the potential threats of the latest proposal of the Albanese government. Credit: Shutterstock
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has been particularly vocal, with researcher Elizabeth Taylor expressing concerns about the bill.
‘One of our concerns about this Bill is that it has the potential to stifle the processes through which knowledge moves on,' she said.
'The misinformation of today may be proven to be correct tomorrow,' she stated.
Michelle Pearse, ACL's Chief Executive, has criticised the bill's provisions on religious vilification, calling them ‘an over-reaction to censor contrary opinions’.
Melbourne Archbishop Peter A Comensoli echoed this sentiment, saying, 'The legislation itself does not deal with this in any articulate way…the issue around who would be making judgments around what is truthful, what is fact, not so much the content itself.’
'The platforms themselves have bias.'
Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, has called for 'greater transparency, accountability, and scrutiny mechanisms' within the legislation.
She warned that the bill's broad definitions could blur the lines between harmful misinformation and disinformation, leading to ‘behavioural content that we don't like'.
'We don't feel the Bill in its current form strikes that right balance in terms of the protections that it provides, particularly for freedom of expression,' she said.
‘That's a harm that we say is very real based on the current drafting of the legislation, but it's a harm that's actually very hard to measure because we simply don't know to what extent that self-censorship might occur.’
Despite these concerns, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant has supported the bill, emphasising the need for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to have enhanced powers to demand transparency from digital platforms.
'We can't have accountability without meaningful transparency,' she said.
'My experience having worked 22 years in the technology industry, and now almost eight years as (commissioner), (is) we absolutely need powers to compel very specific answers to specific questions around what they are and are not doing.'
.png){kind=icon}
. Of course all the religious groups want to be able to continue their support for 'disinformation'. They'd be out of a job if they had to produce proof of their claims.
