Freedom risked by info bill
Print
Australia's proposed ‘Misinformation Bill’ has stirred outrage among free speech advocates.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 aims to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to regulate misinformation on digital platforms more effectively.
If passed, the Bill will provide the ACMA with broader regulatory powers, enabling it to impose penalties on social media companies that fail to curb the spread of misinformation.
The potential fines could reach as high as 5 per cent of a company's global revenue, increasing the pressure on platforms to take stricter measures against false information.
Additionally, the Bill mandates greater transparency from digital platforms regarding their handling of false content, offering Australian users more insight into how misinformation is addressed.
Proponents of the Bill argue that misinformation poses a serious threat to public safety, democracy, and the economy.
Federal communications minister Michelle Rowland says that “doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option”.
The government claims that 80 per cent of Australians believe social media misinformation needs to be addressed.
Despite its aims, the Bill has attracted considerable criticism from a range of experts, civil liberties groups, and media organisations.
Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay has been vocal in her concerns, stating that while the need to address misinformation is clear, the Bill risks undermining the very freedoms it seeks to protect.
Finlay argues that vague definitions of key terms, such as “misinformation” and “harm”, could enable government overreach, potentially leading to censorship of legitimate opinions.
“Laws targeting misinformation and disinformation require clear and precise definitions,” she said, warning that the broad scope of the Bill could allow controversial or unpopular views to be wrongly classified as misinformation.
Other critics, including the Victorian Bar Council and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), have echoed these concerns.
They argue that the low threshold for harm and the lack of clarity around the definition of “serious harm” could lead to an overly restrictive regime where minor contributions to public discourse are stifled.
The MEAA, representing over 15,000 media workers, has expressed apprehension that the Bill could disproportionately affect smaller media outlets and independent journalists, who may not have the resources to navigate the complex compliance requirements.
This may further entrench larger platforms’ dominance.
There is also concern that platforms could over-censor to avoid steep fines, potentially limiting free speech and robust debate.
Another point of contention lies in the Bill’s exemption of government-approved content from being classified as misinformation or disinformation.
Critics say there is clear potential for bias in favour of government communications while suppressing opposing viewpoints from political rivals or civil society groups.
This has raised concerns about the impartiality of the regulatory framework, with some questioning whether the Bill could be used to silence legitimate dissent.
The government has pledged to consider feedback from public consultations before finalising the legislation.
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, with a report due in late November.