Anthony Albanese’s plan to censor your personal opinions, if they differ from his, has some disturbing parallels with George Orwell’s 1984.
Like the novel’s Ministry of Truth, Labour’s ominously titled “Countering Misinformation and Misinformation Bill” is putting public servants in charge of deciding what is true and what is a lie.
But instead of rewriting the books and history, The Australian Communications and Media Authority will have the power to decide what false information is in Facebook.
If this bill passes, a Big Brother government agency would monitor your social media musings and determine if they are acceptable.
That would mean censoring opinions considered contrary to government policy.
The parameters are also highly subjective, giving “thought police” bureaucrats more leeway to abuse their powers.
The plan to criminalize “damaging the operation or integrity of an electoral or referendum process in Australia” could have seen people sanctioned for campaigning last year against Aboriginal Voice to Parliament if they alleged misconduct by the Australian Electoral Council . Commission.
Anthony Albanese’s plan to censor your personal opinions, if they differ from his, has some disturbing parallels with George Orwell’s 1984.
Citizens concerned about missing ballot boxes would face charges, even if there was evidence that vote counters were not doing their job properly.
The bill also includes ridiculously subjective provisions such as “imminent harm to the Australian economy”.
An economist or businessman who expresses concern about high inflation or the prospect of further interest rate increases – thereby discouraging consumer spending – could potentially be breaking the law even if the law is not directed at commentators.
Someone concerned about high levels of immigration and multiculturalism in Australia could be breaking the law if they vilified a group of people based on race or religion.
Concern could also be expressed about trans women competing in women’s sports because “gender identity” is covered by this bill, making it possible for the regulator to impose sanctions based on its interpretation of the definition of a woman.
Another offense would be causing “harm to public health in Australia, including the effectiveness of preventive health measures.”
Skeptics of the Covid vaccination mandate and lockdown would have broken the law if they had publicly expressed their anger on social media.
People like Zoe Buhler, a pregnant woman from Ballarat, arrested at her home in September 2020 for writing a Facebook post opposing Victoria’s lockdowns, would also have faced stiff penalties.
People like Ballarat mother Zoe Buhler, arrested at her home in September 2020 for writing a Facebook post opposing Victoria’s lockdowns, would also have faced stiff penalties.
The Labor Party bill proposes maximum sentences of Fines of $7,825 million for companies and $1,565 million for individuals, under the existing sanctioning units.
This could land people in jail, as few of us could pay a fine equivalent to the price of a house in Sydney.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland used the word “harmful” no fewer than six times in a parliamentary speech in which she said the government’s goal was to protect people from themselves.
“The rapid spread of seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation poses a significant challenge to the functioning of societies around the world,” he warned in September.
He even used an Orwellian phrase of “doublespeak” – “freedom of speech” – to somehow suggest that the government’s plan was to address information that was “misleading or misleading and reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.”
Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sydney, told a Senate hearing this week that trusting government fact-checkers was a problem, arguing that giving ACMA the power to “conduct investigations” made them in the arbiter of misinformation.
“If they are relied upon to censor large amounts of comments on particular controversial issues, that would be very problematic,” he said.
“You can be quite selective with the experts you choose; (for) any political issue, you can find experts on both sides.”
Professor Twomey added that Labour’s bill could see people censured simply for expressing accurate opinions – and not just false information – that disagreed with government policy.
“Once you go beyond what is verifiably false in things like statements and opinions that are made during an electoral process, and say that the electoral process is undermined if people are told things that could mislead them, “Then we are right, we are going to enter politics.” communication and that’s where everything will collapse,” he said.
‘The problem for me is that when I (first) read the bill, I thought, “Oh, okay,” because it refers to things that are verifiably false.
‘But when I read the explanatory memorandum, I see something completely different. To me, that confusion is where the constitutional problem potentially comes into play.’
While the Australian Constitution does not guarantee freedom of expression like the First Amendment in the United States, the High Court has upheld freedom of political communication.
The Coalition opposes this bill, but if it reaches the Senate with the support of the Greens and left-wing independents, only a successful High Court challenge will protect Australians from having their freedom taken away.
The government argues that its bill only requires social media companies to keep records of misinformation and disinformation, rather than giving ACMA the direct power to demand that content be removed.
But Professor Twomey fears “it could all go very wrong”, even if ACMA does not have the final say and the decision is left to the social media giants. what constitutes disinformation.
“We create worse problems by large-scale censorship of controversial views and weakening democracy in the name of cleansing it of misinformation,” he said.
He noted that the bill goes beyond targeting fraudulent ads or posts that are obviously false.
“We are dealing with opinions, comments and claims – you can’t prove those things are false,” Professor Twomey said.
“You can’t prove that someone’s opinion is false: it is an opinion.”
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland used the word “harmful” no fewer than six times in a parliamentary speech in which she said the government’s goal was to protect people from themselves.
Labor claims that social media giants are spreading misinformation and disinformation, but if that is the case it is hypocritical for the party to spend such large sums on Facebook advertising.
Meta data shows the Australian Labor Party has spent $3,079,270 on Facebook ads since August 2020, more than triple the Liberal Party’s $955,838.
The Australian Electoral Commission has also spent $2,348,227 over the past four years, apparently on a platform that the government says cannot be trusted not to interfere with elections.
The AEC is far from the only federal government agency that spends heavily on Facebook ads: the Department of Social Services spent $1,475,379, the Department of Agriculture spent $910,487, and the Department of Health and Aged Care spent $511,386.
In 1984, “two and two make five” with Big Brother watching you and deciding the truth. It is a world where “ignorance is strength” and “war is peace,” and privileged party elites decide what ordinary people, or “proles,” can know.
Orwell, a socialist and war correspondent, saw the dangers of a totalitarian state.
Labour’s Misinformation and Misinformation Bill is the only thing that should be cancelled, not free speech.
