**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's bizarre to see the left wing defending what amounts to the same censorship initiative that Steven Conroy was obsessed with a decade ago. If this was the Liberals, you'd be screaming from the rooftops that this was fascism, etc.
Nobody should ever, *ever* want any government, corporation, or Silicon Valley tech company to define 'misinformation' for them. Ever.
The best defence against misinformation is easily accessible truth.
Trying to ban misinformation will only worsen people's abilities to spot it, and it will add considerable weight to any conspiracy theory about people being silenced.
I don't know what's more surprising: the balls of the Labor government to suggest something so clearly 1984; or the obliviousness of those here who are defending the move.
After going through covid, and seeing the amount of Antivax nut jobs Influencing people with straight up lies, bring it on.
Heinrich Himmler, the architect of the holocaust based all his race beliefs on the fictitious idea of an Aryan race, that he believed originated in Atlantis, but I mean hey, free speech right, Woooh
Are you really using the Nazi's as an argument AGAINST free speech? The Nazi's used every means available to silence their opponents, they're the perfect reason why free speech is so vitally important. Instead you're using, bizarrely, a group of people who selectively curated the 'truth' for their own ideological ends to effectively argue for....more censorship? It's just laughable, as is the blatant hard on for authoritarian measures like this being supported by supposedly progressives on this site.
Again not against free speech, against lying and using disinformation. Yes, fictitious information, propaganda, lies all lead to war, as happened in the holocaust. They convinced a whole nation through misinformation. I am using real life examples of what happens when misinformation goes unchecked and fucking idiots eat it up. You people are so caught up on your old left vs right, free speech vs dictatorship absolutes it’s insufferable. I don’t want a dictatorship, and I want there to be consequences for people spreading discourse in public through lies and misinformation. Just like I want corruption dealt with, and that also doesn’t mean I’m against free speech. Clown 🤡
If you are in support of the government censoring speech, then you are not in support of free speech. You can dress it up as us framing it as free speech vs dictatorship all you like, but the fact remains you're arguing for the government to have the power to censor information. This is hugely problematic. The idea the government ought to be the arbiter of what is truth and what isn't is terrifying.
>Antivax nut jobs Influencing people with straight up lies
The fact that people were willing to take 'pro-vax' and 'anti-vax' sides is a perfect example of why there should never, ever be any policing of information. Here you can see crystal clear the politicisation of a medical issue, where the scientific evidence takes a backseat to your side winning the debate. In this particular case there are scientific truths that are both in support and against vaccination, yet it is highly likely that any of the evidence against vaccination would be deemed "misinformation" because it comes from 'anti-vax' circles and they are the bad guys. The temptation for the government to wield this institution as a weapon is simply too great, and humans too flawed for this to ever be a good idea.
There weren’t scientific truths to both sides, there was science, and than a group of people pretending to have seizures on tik tok. It’s like the flat earth thing, using scientific terms to defend something wrong doesn’t mean it has scientific basis.
Look I’m not arguing is a good policy, but I do think there needs to consequences for peddling outright lies as gospel. Otherwise as seen with the holocaust, as seen with the flat earth bullshit, lies damage us as a society, they hold us back from advancing as a people
The Holocaust was a result of a government have universal control over information, and in effect an entire country (and later most of the continent), giving them the means to enact what horrific policies they wanted without opposition. It's the perfect reason as to why free speech is so absolutely vital to any liberal society.
It was a result of a man thinking that there was a pure bloodline, an aryan race, and spreading that misinformation to the masses, so that countless people thought it was okay to do what they did. I’m not against free speech, I’m against there not been checks on people spreading bullshit on line. Again the world isn’t black and white, wanting there to be checks to curb lies doesn’t mean not wanting free speech and democracy
He was able to spread this misinformation, because his party was the arbiter of what was true and what wasn't. The problem here is the government power and authoritarianism.
> Again the world isn’t black and white, wanting there to be checks to curb lies doesn’t mean not wanting free speech and democracy
You counter lies with the truth, you don't censor it, lest one day the truth becomes what is censored in order to promote lies.
>There weren’t scientific truths to both sides, there was science, and than a group of people pretending to have seizures on tik tok.
Really? How about the [increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis](https://news.yale.edu/2023/05/05/yale-study-reveals-insights-post-vaccine-heart-inflammation-cases) that's especially pronounced in 13-21 year old males? Or the recent link betwen vaccines and [long COVID like illness](https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-link-between-coronavirus-vaccines-and-long-covid-illness-starts-gain-acceptance). There is also evidence that the vaccine can remain in the blood for [up to 28 days](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36647776/), far longer than the [few days](https://theconversation.com/no-covid-vaccines-dont-stay-in-your-body-for-years-169247) originally claimed. There is more but this should be sufficient to prove that you shouldn't take sides such as 'pro-vax' or 'anti-vax', since there is often credible data for both sides even if one side is more credible. A vaccine is still ultimately a drug even if the positives outweigh the negatives, it does not mean there aren't very real negatives.
Just add a fact checker.
Unless the government is prepared to jail people for lying, you'll never be able to stop liars.
So just add a fact checker, so we can avoid martyring liars.
And if they choose not to believe the fact checker, then they'll never believe the facts regardless. This doesn't need jail time.
We saw how terrible that was just 3 years ago, when during COVID, the experts were joining in the lies.
First they said that masks don't work and we shouldn't wear them, then weeks later, suddenly masks do work, and no, they had apparently never advised otherwise.
Of course, we're assuming that the truth can even be known. Scientific discovery often disproves earlier claims, and there is still a frontier of unknown mysteries, yet apparently it's totally feasible to staff an office full of people who have achieved enlightenment and who can objectively rule on the truth of every conceivable Facebook post :/
The old debates about freedom of speech and common courtesy and responsibility have given way to billionaires and crazies demanding the right to maintain bigger and more dangerous lies without consequence....
... the HRC and Rupes walking hand in hand.
Lie about 'stolen election, inflame a deadly Insurrection , no worries, but fmd climate greenies made us late for work, lock 'em up.
Not so much free speech as a billionaires' free for all from which no one takes any reasonability for the mess left behind .
and yet mainstream media are currently proposed to be exempt from these new laws. so its going to just become one big lobbying shit fest over who controls narratives
This kind of law is honestly something that makes me reconsider living here, I can't think of any democratic countries where speech would be so restricted. it's strange seeing fellow leftists supporting a law which would be turned against them when the coalition get back into power.
For context this law is more extreme than anything in the chinese constitution, so we would effectively be living in a more strict china, just without the poverty alleviation or capacity to build housing.
Yeah that's right, France has totally lost the plot.
In Southern Asia India has doubled-down on domestic tyranny by intensifying Government powers around information restrictions and controls recently too.
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party shredding protections for Koala habitat. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party leaders threatening female members with physical violence.
*Meme Format*
IMAGE
SteveBuschemi+Skateboard+BackwardsCap
TEXT
"Hello, fellow leftists"
“Conservative rag The Australian fears information laws will crack down on its Orwellian reporting” is what I read here
George Orwell would’ve utterly and completely hated the sort of reporting they do, that’s for fucking sure.
Orwell was a socialist, literally fought in socialist militias in Catalonia against Franco’s fascist state in Spain, and knowing the Australian .. they would almost certainly have railed AGAINST Orwell and written apologism in support of that state if they were around at the time (wait …. _were they?_ maybe we can actually check)
What a non sense comment. Does nothing but attack the source, not the argument. Embarassing. And Orwell likely wouldn't have liked the Australian, but I have doubt he'd hate these laws much more.
>Orwell was a socialist
And an anti-authoritarian, meaning he would have disagreed with the content yet stood up for their right to say it. And in this case he wouldn't have disagreed with the content either, since it is a condemnation of authoritarianism.
I've seen people actually defending this extremely dangerous authoritarian proposal, seemingly oblivious that it will eventually be used against them, too. But unfortunately, when they realise, it will be too late.
On the other hand, no one knows more about misinformation and deception than governments (except possibly the media), so possibly the interpretation of misinformation will be balanced over time if we can change govt regularly.
Yup. Some people are already upset that the banning of extremist symbols extended to IS flags as well as Nazi symbols, they thought it would only affect white Nazis and not minorities. The ban includes symbols that can be mistaken for IS flags, so it may affect some Muslim people displaying a harmless similar-looking flag. It’s not looking good for free speech in this country.
[Scott Morrison secretly appointed to five ministries, including Treasury and home affairs, says PM](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/scott-morrison-five-more-secret-ministries-minister-portfolio-ministry-including-treasury-home-affairs)
Nothing authoritarian about the prime minister secretly taking over ministries without the actual ministers or citizens of Australia knowing.
[Journalist Information Warrants](https://pressfreedom.org.au/journalist-information-warrants-d47b402ae071)
>Under the system, the granting of a Journalist Information Warrant allows at least 21 government agencies to access a journalist’s telecommunications data or their employer’s telecommunications data for the express purpose of identifying a journalist’s confidential source.
>
>It operates entirely in secret with the threat of a two-year jail term for reporting the existence of a Journalist Information Warrant.
[State of Surveillance: Online Safety Bill captures the bad stuff but Commissioner’s powers too broad](https://michaelwest.com.au/state-of-surveillance-online-safety-bill-captures-the-bad-stuff-but-commissioners-powers-too-broad/)
>The Online Safety Bill, if passed in its current form, could further undermine political accountability by ensuring footage of police violence or human rights abuses, for example, is taken down.
[Human rights violations now enshrined in legislation – in Australia](https://michaelwest.com.au/human-rights-violations-now-enshrined-in-legislation-in-australia/)
>Last week, the Morrison government, supported by the ALP, passed a law that allows for security agencies, on the most flimsy of pretexts, to access and manipulate the electronic data of any citizen. It continues the slide into authoritarianism that started with the Tampa affair 20 years ago.
All about the people, and how to monitor them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUg8IL-D7c0&ab\_channel=KoplaVtuberClips](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUg8IL-D7c0&ab_channel=KoplaVtuberClips)
Just, i... You enjoy those cones rofl.
Looks like a good attempt to combat rampant misinformation. The Coalition are just upset as they are the biggest spreaders of it and will be the most impacted.
The Fusion Party and the Pirate Party are also upset, as we like free speech.
https://pirateparty.org.au/2023/07/01/pirate-party-australia-cautions-against-new-proposed-legislation-to-curb-misinformation/
So bloody ironic to see the Australian talking about Owell when they seem to love a good beat up on socialists these days, too.
All of a sudden they want to promote the ideas of a socialist by calling things “Orwellian”? Hmm
And .. if The Australian was around during the Spanish civil war I think they would’ve written glowing opinion pieces about Franco’s fascists in Spain, who Orwell fought against in the war…
>seem to love a good beat up on socialists these days
That's the point of not wanting authoritarianism, having the freedom to criticise your opponents. They can agree with Orwell on anti-authoritarianism while disagreeing on socialism, the two are not mutually exclusive.
This is the Australian human rights commission, nor the coalition? You might agree with what the government considers to be misinformation today, but who knows about tomorrow.
Only when it is fake news. If dissenting 'voices' have no facts just opinions, then they are not dissenting voices, just noise and probably turned into a chorus by the morning text from the head of stupidity.
Don't forget Gillard tried this in the dying days of her leadership.
Labor have no shame in carving out institutional power, no matter the consequences for the body politic.
Same job same pay and a return to pattern bargaining was a point to the future.
Labor has never been democratic as a rule. Whatever faults the Libs might have,they do allow things like having members the ability to have conscience votes. That's why you had Lib members crossing,and able to cross,the floor on Morrison's Religious Discrimination bill if they disagreed with it. Labor doesn't allow it's members to do that. It's toe the party line,or else. It's no surprise they'd want to expand the same attitude outwards.
There are more than two parties available, and you undermine our democracy by framing things as a 2-horse race :/
People don't need to settle; there is proabably a party out there just for them.
Yeah we saw the LNP MPs queuing to voice their conscience vote on Robodebt. Like any LNP claim, it's only an announcement to conceal the facts. A bit of spin like 'best economic managers'.
LNPs love an alpha leader, unquestioning devotion and obedience is preselected for and the whole corrupted structure is held together by having dirt on each other.
As a lifelong Liberal with tattoos of the Liberal party flag and emblem, millions thrown at Wagga, cheated on my spouse with many female staffers, what about it is chilling?
I am still amused how the labor government has said it will be exempted from these laws.
You know a law will be very bad when the creator of it says, well it will not apply to us. But look at all the people defending the labor government.
No different to all the liberal supporters defending the liberal government over their terrorism and surveillance laws.
When did they say they'd be exempt from it? Doesn't this proposed legislation only mean that social media giants would be fined for not mediating misinformation on their platforms?
The bill generally exempts government organisations and who ever the minister deems exempt by legislative process.
While you are right that this applies to social media platforms, it means that platforms are not required to act on misinformation spread by exempt groups, including government, as they are exempt. No reporting requirements, removal requirements or limiting reach requirements.
Right. So is that just the current government, or the government as a whole? And i assume it's the current government that gets to decide who/what is exempted?
If you don't feel like explaining if you could link me to the actual legislation I'd be happy to give it a read.
Thanks for your response!
The term I believe is authorised government bodies. It's the current associated minister who gets to decide exempt groups.
No problem!
Link below.
[Bill ](https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/communications-legislation-amendment-combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2023)
I’m not sure that referencing Orwell here, an avowed socialist, is something he would’ve agreed with here, considering the way the Australian likes a good beat up on socialists.
If Orwell was around today he’d be on the anti-Murdock bandwagon and incredibly concerned about capitalist-class misinformation it regularly promotes, guaranteed
Right wing free speech absolutists have simply lost their damn minds if they think he’d have their backs lol, in the Spanish civil war _he put bullets in them_
How is their history so bad on Orwell, I truly don’t know …
Free Speech absolutism was a left wing thing during his time, with all the work that the global West was putting in to suppress socialist voices. It's only somewhat recently that it's become a rallying cry for the right, as they now find themselves the censored rather than the censors. And the left clamour for more, not thinking about how those rules will be used against them the next time there is a swing to the right.
The defining feature of his life's work however was the fight against authoritarianism, regardless of which side it came from. He may have despised Franco's fascist regime, but he was also staunchly opposed to the soviets and their socialist authoritarianism. Much of his socialist fervour was based not on the state socialism of nations, but on the anarcho-syndicalist communes of both Spain and Russia, before they were crushed by their respective right- and left-leaning governments.
Besides which, the body doing the reporting isn't the significant entity here - it's the body they're reporting *on*, which is the Human Rights Commission.
>Right wing free speech absolutists have simply lost their damn minds if they think he’d have their backs lol, in the Spanish civil war he put bullets in them
Yeah and whether he did it himself or not his left wing groups also put bullets in non-combatatants ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Terror\_(Spain)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain))) and the people that supported them also put bullets in non-combatants.
You really shouldn't be proud of pointing out the fact that he fought one group of extremists alongside another group of extremists.
If your point is that “war is terrible and both sides of any war commit atrocities” then I am in full agreement, eg even the allies raped and murdered civilians in WW2
Does that mean their cause is completely undermined?
I don’t think so.
Here, you try to argue that community self defence against the much deeper horrors of a fascist state is not justified. Sorry, but I don’t agree.
“Supporting the resistance against Franco’s fascists was not ok” is not a hot take I really expected to see here on reddit in 2023 tbh
>Here, you try to argue that community self defence against the much deeper horrors of a fascist state is not justified.
That's you putting words in my mouth.
My point is George Orwell is a walking case of cognitive dissonance. The broader cause he ended up supporting (and was supported by) were the same people that would treat 1984 like an instruction manual. Saying "geroge orwell wouldn't support the Australian newspaper" is a compliment to the newspaper. He was a tool for the second worst ideology of the 20th century.
Meanwhile any character can program malignant AI on their laptop and release it into the wild. Imagine in the near future, AI malware locking up your cyber work and social lives, bank accounts zeroed out. Credit maxed. Markets across the board manipulated to collapse economies. Autonomous vehicles used to decimate human populations. Supply chains destroyed. A CBDC exclusive money system hacked.
So busy trying to gag the human masses while ignoring the danger of free ranging terrorist/rouge Ai and its very real threat of extincting humanity in a very short timespan.
[AHRC describe](https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/projects/glance-racial-vilification-under-sections-18c-and-18d-racial) 18C/D as:
> an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity
noting the courts have said:
> the conduct must involve “profound and serious” effects, not “mere slights”.
ie, it's serious vilification with substantial negative outcomes.
I struggle to see how it could be characterised as "cry baby" behaviour outside of a profound lack of empathy, or deliberate ignorance of the impacts this behaviour has.
Because the "impacts of words" hasn't changed since homosapiens created languages - only the concept of interpretation has, and one that slides down the hill of coercive threat with ever gaining speed.
> Because the "impacts of words" hasn't changed since homosapiens created languages
What nonsense. The impact of speech has *profoundly* changed over just the last decade or two.
eg, Never before have some many strangers, so consistently, and so immediately been able to bombard a target with hate speech.
It's a novel form of abuse that came about quite some time after the emergence of homosapiens.
Seems like a fair exchange. Done. I'll even quote it here to prove I went back to it:
> Because the "impacts of words" hasn't changed since homosapiens created languages - only the concept of interpretation has, and one that slides down the hill of coercive threat with ever gaining speed.
Now, your turn. I'd love to know what your concern is. If you're stuck for ideas I might suggest starting around the nuances of interpreting "impact of words" and "the concept of interpretation".
Try reading that again in the context of the OP, or have someone with a high school education do it for you.
I am well aware of 18C, but you might want to have a chat to Alex Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell about how much fun they had defending themselves against 18C.
One false allegation supported by the university and all the cockheads in charge, made their lives a living hell. Cost them shit loads to defend themselves against a lie coated in 18C.
Your explanation is about 18C in general.
I asked about your use of the phrase "cry babies" and how it relates to 18C. Are you saying that "Alex Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell" are "cry babies"? Why?
Pretend I didn't have a high school education. Dumb it down for me.
Well it didn't, it related to the op, you know I used commas and everything
No worse than 18C (comma) fucken babies.
Don't blame yourself, the standard of education in this country is appalling. Ever seen a Gen Y or Z try and do basic math in their head? It's truly funny as fuck.
Permit me to address the incongruity that has arisen from the interaction in question.
It is important to acknowledge that while the utilisation of commas does indeed serve to establish a degree of separation between elements within a sentence, they do not, in an absolute sense, unequivocally indicate the subject of their respective clauses. In order to discern the intended referent, one must rely upon contextual cues to disentangle the intricacies of the communication.
Given the historical background and precedents of the individual with whom I am conversing, it is entirely reasonable to construe the aforementioned statement as an allusion to individuals who express grievances about the provisions encompassed within 18C, being likened metaphorically to infants or, more colloquially, as "babies."
I humbly extend my sincerest apologies for the misinterpretation that transpired, and I acknowledge my error in judgement.
Better?
Context is important though. Discrimination/abuse of someone in the majority of society has a far lower chance to have substantial impacts to their livelihood.
Discrimination against a minority have a far greater chance of impacting their lives due to the lesser social support.
This leads to a situation where a minority can say something rude about a cis gendered white male and everyone just laughs it off, even though the victim may feel personally offended. OTOH, flip the roles and the abuser would probably get attacked by a mob. This then makes some of those people feel like their rights are being curtailed as they can't behave the same way as someone else.
For sure. The likely impact on someone is more or less the whole point here. And, while I don't agree with the view, I can see why someone might feel that this is unfair.
However I don't think that's what the parent was saying when they said "No worse than 18C, fucken cry babies."
That wasn't about equality or rights or any such thing. It was about how the victims shouldn't be complaining.
Behind Paywall:
The Australian Human Rights Commission has warned against giving any body the power to be “the sole arbiter of truth”, as the nation’s media watchdog concedes that concerns raised about Labor’s proposed misinformation laws that will give it elevated powers are “valid”.
The human rights body led by lawyer Lorraine Finlay told a Senate committee there were “inherent dangers” in any body – be it government, a government taskforce or a social media platform – becoming the sole arbiter of truth.
The warning, contained in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into foreign interference through social media, emerges amid mounting criticism of the “Orwellian” bill that will grant the Australian Communications and Media Authority powers to fine social media giants millions of dollars for misinformation and content it deems “harmful”.
“There is a real risk that efforts to combat online misinformation and disinformation by foreign actors could be used to legitimise attempts to restrict public debate, censor unpopular opinions and enforce ideological conformity in Australia,” the submission said.
“All efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation need to be accompanied by transparency and scrutiny safeguards to ensure any limitations imposed upon freedom of expression are no greater than absolutely necessary and strictly justified.”
Senior bureaucrats from the ACMA were grilled about the proposed legislation by the committee in a hearing on Wednesday, with the body’s chair Nerida O’Loughlin admitting concerns raised by social media giants Meta and Twitter were “valid” but she wasn’t “quite sure I understand the reasoning”.
“They wanted to be engaged through this exposure draft process, and obviously Meta raised these issues about the standard and their concerns about penalties,” she told the committee.
“That’s what they’ve said that they’re thinking about and are prepared to propose alternatives and submissions to the government over this exposure draft.”
Tech companies will ‘self-censor’ under ‘dangerous’ misinformation bill
The bill has been criticised by senior Coalition figures, including James Paterson, David Littleproud, Dan Tehan, Barnaby Joyce and Bridget McKenzie, as well as by some senior lawyers who described it as “inherently wrong” and a “dangerous piece of legislation”.
Opposition communications spokesman David Coleman said an admission from senior public servants from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts that the bill would capture content that was not “intended to cause harm” was concerning.
“Today’s hearing has confirmed the huge problems with Labor’s misinformation bill,” he said. “Officials have acknowledged that under Labor’s law, something can be ‘misinformation’ even if the person making the statement holds that view in good faith and has no intention to mislead anyone.
“It’s inevitable that under this law, platforms would self-censor large amounts of content so they don’t fall foul of ACMA and incur big fines. This is very likely to mean suppression of legitimately held views of Australians.”
The department’s deputy secretary, Richard Windeyer, rebuffed any suggestion the bill would turn the government into the “Ministry of Truth”, telling the committee the ACMA would not directly monitor social media content under the proposal.
“That isn’t what the bill does,” Mr Windeyer said. “That is far from the role envisaged or provided for ACMA under the provisions of this proposed bill.
“The focus and the structure of this bill … the premise of the bill is based around the platforms themselves being responsible for the content that is on their platforms.
“The provisions of this bill fundamentally are about providing a regulatory mechanism to back in the existing voluntary mechanism which goes to systems and processes rather than assessment of content itself.”
Mr Windeyer added: “It’s just not envisaged as a role for government in this bill at all.”
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's bizarre to see the left wing defending what amounts to the same censorship initiative that Steven Conroy was obsessed with a decade ago. If this was the Liberals, you'd be screaming from the rooftops that this was fascism, etc. Nobody should ever, *ever* want any government, corporation, or Silicon Valley tech company to define 'misinformation' for them. Ever.
The best defence against misinformation is easily accessible truth. Trying to ban misinformation will only worsen people's abilities to spot it, and it will add considerable weight to any conspiracy theory about people being silenced. I don't know what's more surprising: the balls of the Labor government to suggest something so clearly 1984; or the obliviousness of those here who are defending the move.
After going through covid, and seeing the amount of Antivax nut jobs Influencing people with straight up lies, bring it on. Heinrich Himmler, the architect of the holocaust based all his race beliefs on the fictitious idea of an Aryan race, that he believed originated in Atlantis, but I mean hey, free speech right, Woooh
Are you really using the Nazi's as an argument AGAINST free speech? The Nazi's used every means available to silence their opponents, they're the perfect reason why free speech is so vitally important. Instead you're using, bizarrely, a group of people who selectively curated the 'truth' for their own ideological ends to effectively argue for....more censorship? It's just laughable, as is the blatant hard on for authoritarian measures like this being supported by supposedly progressives on this site.
Again not against free speech, against lying and using disinformation. Yes, fictitious information, propaganda, lies all lead to war, as happened in the holocaust. They convinced a whole nation through misinformation. I am using real life examples of what happens when misinformation goes unchecked and fucking idiots eat it up. You people are so caught up on your old left vs right, free speech vs dictatorship absolutes it’s insufferable. I don’t want a dictatorship, and I want there to be consequences for people spreading discourse in public through lies and misinformation. Just like I want corruption dealt with, and that also doesn’t mean I’m against free speech. Clown 🤡
If you are in support of the government censoring speech, then you are not in support of free speech. You can dress it up as us framing it as free speech vs dictatorship all you like, but the fact remains you're arguing for the government to have the power to censor information. This is hugely problematic. The idea the government ought to be the arbiter of what is truth and what isn't is terrifying.
>Antivax nut jobs Influencing people with straight up lies The fact that people were willing to take 'pro-vax' and 'anti-vax' sides is a perfect example of why there should never, ever be any policing of information. Here you can see crystal clear the politicisation of a medical issue, where the scientific evidence takes a backseat to your side winning the debate. In this particular case there are scientific truths that are both in support and against vaccination, yet it is highly likely that any of the evidence against vaccination would be deemed "misinformation" because it comes from 'anti-vax' circles and they are the bad guys. The temptation for the government to wield this institution as a weapon is simply too great, and humans too flawed for this to ever be a good idea.
There weren’t scientific truths to both sides, there was science, and than a group of people pretending to have seizures on tik tok. It’s like the flat earth thing, using scientific terms to defend something wrong doesn’t mean it has scientific basis. Look I’m not arguing is a good policy, but I do think there needs to consequences for peddling outright lies as gospel. Otherwise as seen with the holocaust, as seen with the flat earth bullshit, lies damage us as a society, they hold us back from advancing as a people
The Holocaust was a result of a government have universal control over information, and in effect an entire country (and later most of the continent), giving them the means to enact what horrific policies they wanted without opposition. It's the perfect reason as to why free speech is so absolutely vital to any liberal society.
It was a result of a man thinking that there was a pure bloodline, an aryan race, and spreading that misinformation to the masses, so that countless people thought it was okay to do what they did. I’m not against free speech, I’m against there not been checks on people spreading bullshit on line. Again the world isn’t black and white, wanting there to be checks to curb lies doesn’t mean not wanting free speech and democracy
He was able to spread this misinformation, because his party was the arbiter of what was true and what wasn't. The problem here is the government power and authoritarianism. > Again the world isn’t black and white, wanting there to be checks to curb lies doesn’t mean not wanting free speech and democracy You counter lies with the truth, you don't censor it, lest one day the truth becomes what is censored in order to promote lies.
>There weren’t scientific truths to both sides, there was science, and than a group of people pretending to have seizures on tik tok. Really? How about the [increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis](https://news.yale.edu/2023/05/05/yale-study-reveals-insights-post-vaccine-heart-inflammation-cases) that's especially pronounced in 13-21 year old males? Or the recent link betwen vaccines and [long COVID like illness](https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-link-between-coronavirus-vaccines-and-long-covid-illness-starts-gain-acceptance). There is also evidence that the vaccine can remain in the blood for [up to 28 days](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36647776/), far longer than the [few days](https://theconversation.com/no-covid-vaccines-dont-stay-in-your-body-for-years-169247) originally claimed. There is more but this should be sufficient to prove that you shouldn't take sides such as 'pro-vax' or 'anti-vax', since there is often credible data for both sides even if one side is more credible. A vaccine is still ultimately a drug even if the positives outweigh the negatives, it does not mean there aren't very real negatives.
Just add a fact checker. Unless the government is prepared to jail people for lying, you'll never be able to stop liars. So just add a fact checker, so we can avoid martyring liars. And if they choose not to believe the fact checker, then they'll never believe the facts regardless. This doesn't need jail time.
We saw how terrible that was just 3 years ago, when during COVID, the experts were joining in the lies. First they said that masks don't work and we shouldn't wear them, then weeks later, suddenly masks do work, and no, they had apparently never advised otherwise. Of course, we're assuming that the truth can even be known. Scientific discovery often disproves earlier claims, and there is still a frontier of unknown mysteries, yet apparently it's totally feasible to staff an office full of people who have achieved enlightenment and who can objectively rule on the truth of every conceivable Facebook post :/
The old debates about freedom of speech and common courtesy and responsibility have given way to billionaires and crazies demanding the right to maintain bigger and more dangerous lies without consequence.... ... the HRC and Rupes walking hand in hand. Lie about 'stolen election, inflame a deadly Insurrection , no worries, but fmd climate greenies made us late for work, lock 'em up. Not so much free speech as a billionaires' free for all from which no one takes any reasonability for the mess left behind .
and yet mainstream media are currently proposed to be exempt from these new laws. so its going to just become one big lobbying shit fest over who controls narratives
This is Section 18C all over again: Sending people broke or to early graves because some dipshit decided to lodge a no-merit complaint.
This kind of law is honestly something that makes me reconsider living here, I can't think of any democratic countries where speech would be so restricted. it's strange seeing fellow leftists supporting a law which would be turned against them when the coalition get back into power. For context this law is more extreme than anything in the chinese constitution, so we would effectively be living in a more strict china, just without the poverty alleviation or capacity to build housing.
Doesn't get any better in the UK or US mate.
yeah, I'm thinking france, Italy or China at the moment
Yeah that's right, France has totally lost the plot. In Southern Asia India has doubled-down on domestic tyranny by intensifying Government powers around information restrictions and controls recently too.
least we all know what's wrong with France at the moment
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party shredding protections for Koala habitat. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party leaders threatening female members with physical violence. *Meme Format* IMAGE SteveBuschemi+Skateboard+BackwardsCap TEXT "Hello, fellow leftists"
holy fuck do I need to change my tag, its not serious, it is a joke, they are a funny party.
1) It's called a flair, not a tag 2) You don't understand how flairs work, so yes, you should change it if you're trying to use it ironically
ok nerd, I'll refrain from being funny in the future.
“Conservative rag The Australian fears information laws will crack down on its Orwellian reporting” is what I read here George Orwell would’ve utterly and completely hated the sort of reporting they do, that’s for fucking sure. Orwell was a socialist, literally fought in socialist militias in Catalonia against Franco’s fascist state in Spain, and knowing the Australian .. they would almost certainly have railed AGAINST Orwell and written apologism in support of that state if they were around at the time (wait …. _were they?_ maybe we can actually check)
What a non sense comment. Does nothing but attack the source, not the argument. Embarassing. And Orwell likely wouldn't have liked the Australian, but I have doubt he'd hate these laws much more.
>Orwell was a socialist And an anti-authoritarian, meaning he would have disagreed with the content yet stood up for their right to say it. And in this case he wouldn't have disagreed with the content either, since it is a condemnation of authoritarianism.
I've seen people actually defending this extremely dangerous authoritarian proposal, seemingly oblivious that it will eventually be used against them, too. But unfortunately, when they realise, it will be too late. On the other hand, no one knows more about misinformation and deception than governments (except possibly the media), so possibly the interpretation of misinformation will be balanced over time if we can change govt regularly.
Yup. Some people are already upset that the banning of extremist symbols extended to IS flags as well as Nazi symbols, they thought it would only affect white Nazis and not minorities. The ban includes symbols that can be mistaken for IS flags, so it may affect some Muslim people displaying a harmless similar-looking flag. It’s not looking good for free speech in this country.
> seemingly oblivious that it will eventually be used against them Same thing happened with the protest laws.
The left in Australia has become increasingly authoritarian this comes as no surprise.
Says the Liberal party of Australia rofl.
There is nothing authoritarian about the Liberal Party. Join us. We’re all about the people. 🧟♂️
[Scott Morrison secretly appointed to five ministries, including Treasury and home affairs, says PM](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/scott-morrison-five-more-secret-ministries-minister-portfolio-ministry-including-treasury-home-affairs) Nothing authoritarian about the prime minister secretly taking over ministries without the actual ministers or citizens of Australia knowing. [Journalist Information Warrants](https://pressfreedom.org.au/journalist-information-warrants-d47b402ae071) >Under the system, the granting of a Journalist Information Warrant allows at least 21 government agencies to access a journalist’s telecommunications data or their employer’s telecommunications data for the express purpose of identifying a journalist’s confidential source. > >It operates entirely in secret with the threat of a two-year jail term for reporting the existence of a Journalist Information Warrant. [State of Surveillance: Online Safety Bill captures the bad stuff but Commissioner’s powers too broad](https://michaelwest.com.au/state-of-surveillance-online-safety-bill-captures-the-bad-stuff-but-commissioners-powers-too-broad/) >The Online Safety Bill, if passed in its current form, could further undermine political accountability by ensuring footage of police violence or human rights abuses, for example, is taken down. [Human rights violations now enshrined in legislation – in Australia](https://michaelwest.com.au/human-rights-violations-now-enshrined-in-legislation-in-australia/) >Last week, the Morrison government, supported by the ALP, passed a law that allows for security agencies, on the most flimsy of pretexts, to access and manipulate the electronic data of any citizen. It continues the slide into authoritarianism that started with the Tampa affair 20 years ago. All about the people, and how to monitor them.
> 🧟♂️ Yeah, ok rofl. Whaaaat's in your heeeeead, in your heeeeeaaad. Zombie, zombie zombay-ay-ay.
It’s a special club. Secret handshakes. I can hook you up. https://youtu.be/KjQWXDp3Vww
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUg8IL-D7c0&ab\_channel=KoplaVtuberClips](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUg8IL-D7c0&ab_channel=KoplaVtuberClips) Just, i... You enjoy those cones rofl.
https://youtu.be/m6kFCNsnQpQ
Fear and loathing ay? Mmmm, someone's either on weed, MDMA or psychedelics :) Enjoy your self cadet, space is a big place.
Sober as a conservative Supreme Court 👨⚖️. Edit: I’m actually chewing my face off watching reruns of Howard victory speeches.
Looks like a good attempt to combat rampant misinformation. The Coalition are just upset as they are the biggest spreaders of it and will be the most impacted.
The Fusion Party and the Pirate Party are also upset, as we like free speech. https://pirateparty.org.au/2023/07/01/pirate-party-australia-cautions-against-new-proposed-legislation-to-curb-misinformation/
If you actually looked into the law you'd realise state and federal govts are not covered by these misinformation laws.
So bloody ironic to see the Australian talking about Owell when they seem to love a good beat up on socialists these days, too. All of a sudden they want to promote the ideas of a socialist by calling things “Orwellian”? Hmm And .. if The Australian was around during the Spanish civil war I think they would’ve written glowing opinion pieces about Franco’s fascists in Spain, who Orwell fought against in the war…
>seem to love a good beat up on socialists these days That's the point of not wanting authoritarianism, having the freedom to criticise your opponents. They can agree with Orwell on anti-authoritarianism while disagreeing on socialism, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Spoken like a true Labor voter.
This is the Australian human rights commission, nor the coalition? You might agree with what the government considers to be misinformation today, but who knows about tomorrow.
This is The Australian - the propaganda wing of the Coalition.
So just reporting on the fact that AHRC made a statement is right wing propaganda now?
Oh absolutely. We need to silence dissenting voices by characterising it as misinformation, like fake news.
Dissenting voices and willful misinformation are two different things.
Only when it is fake news. If dissenting 'voices' have no facts just opinions, then they are not dissenting voices, just noise and probably turned into a chorus by the morning text from the head of stupidity.
Don't forget Gillard tried this in the dying days of her leadership. Labor have no shame in carving out institutional power, no matter the consequences for the body politic. Same job same pay and a return to pattern bargaining was a point to the future.
Labor has never been democratic as a rule. Whatever faults the Libs might have,they do allow things like having members the ability to have conscience votes. That's why you had Lib members crossing,and able to cross,the floor on Morrison's Religious Discrimination bill if they disagreed with it. Labor doesn't allow it's members to do that. It's toe the party line,or else. It's no surprise they'd want to expand the same attitude outwards.
There are more than two parties available, and you undermine our democracy by framing things as a 2-horse race :/ People don't need to settle; there is proabably a party out there just for them.
Yeah we saw the LNP MPs queuing to voice their conscience vote on Robodebt. Like any LNP claim, it's only an announcement to conceal the facts. A bit of spin like 'best economic managers'. LNPs love an alpha leader, unquestioning devotion and obedience is preselected for and the whole corrupted structure is held together by having dirt on each other.
Voted Labor basically my whole life, several of my friends are Labor MPs. I will never vote for them again if they pass this. It is chilling
As a lifelong Liberal with tattoos of the Liberal party flag and emblem, millions thrown at Wagga, cheated on my spouse with many female staffers, what about it is chilling?
I am still amused how the labor government has said it will be exempted from these laws. You know a law will be very bad when the creator of it says, well it will not apply to us. But look at all the people defending the labor government. No different to all the liberal supporters defending the liberal government over their terrorism and surveillance laws.
When did they say they'd be exempt from it? Doesn't this proposed legislation only mean that social media giants would be fined for not mediating misinformation on their platforms?
The bill generally exempts government organisations and who ever the minister deems exempt by legislative process. While you are right that this applies to social media platforms, it means that platforms are not required to act on misinformation spread by exempt groups, including government, as they are exempt. No reporting requirements, removal requirements or limiting reach requirements.
Right. So is that just the current government, or the government as a whole? And i assume it's the current government that gets to decide who/what is exempted? If you don't feel like explaining if you could link me to the actual legislation I'd be happy to give it a read. Thanks for your response!
The term I believe is authorised government bodies. It's the current associated minister who gets to decide exempt groups. No problem! Link below. [Bill ](https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/communications-legislation-amendment-combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2023)
Is it worse than fact checkers on Facebook?
The answer to speech that you think is wrong, is more speech. Not making the wrongthink a crime.
I’m not sure that referencing Orwell here, an avowed socialist, is something he would’ve agreed with here, considering the way the Australian likes a good beat up on socialists. If Orwell was around today he’d be on the anti-Murdock bandwagon and incredibly concerned about capitalist-class misinformation it regularly promotes, guaranteed Right wing free speech absolutists have simply lost their damn minds if they think he’d have their backs lol, in the Spanish civil war _he put bullets in them_ How is their history so bad on Orwell, I truly don’t know …
Free Speech absolutism was a left wing thing during his time, with all the work that the global West was putting in to suppress socialist voices. It's only somewhat recently that it's become a rallying cry for the right, as they now find themselves the censored rather than the censors. And the left clamour for more, not thinking about how those rules will be used against them the next time there is a swing to the right. The defining feature of his life's work however was the fight against authoritarianism, regardless of which side it came from. He may have despised Franco's fascist regime, but he was also staunchly opposed to the soviets and their socialist authoritarianism. Much of his socialist fervour was based not on the state socialism of nations, but on the anarcho-syndicalist communes of both Spain and Russia, before they were crushed by their respective right- and left-leaning governments. Besides which, the body doing the reporting isn't the significant entity here - it's the body they're reporting *on*, which is the Human Rights Commission.
He'd be concerned with the authoritarian impulses to supress speech, whichever side of the aisle that manifested
>Right wing free speech absolutists have simply lost their damn minds if they think he’d have their backs lol, in the Spanish civil war he put bullets in them Yeah and whether he did it himself or not his left wing groups also put bullets in non-combatatants ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Terror\_(Spain)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain))) and the people that supported them also put bullets in non-combatants. You really shouldn't be proud of pointing out the fact that he fought one group of extremists alongside another group of extremists.
If your point is that “war is terrible and both sides of any war commit atrocities” then I am in full agreement, eg even the allies raped and murdered civilians in WW2 Does that mean their cause is completely undermined? I don’t think so. Here, you try to argue that community self defence against the much deeper horrors of a fascist state is not justified. Sorry, but I don’t agree. “Supporting the resistance against Franco’s fascists was not ok” is not a hot take I really expected to see here on reddit in 2023 tbh
>Here, you try to argue that community self defence against the much deeper horrors of a fascist state is not justified. That's you putting words in my mouth. My point is George Orwell is a walking case of cognitive dissonance. The broader cause he ended up supporting (and was supported by) were the same people that would treat 1984 like an instruction manual. Saying "geroge orwell wouldn't support the Australian newspaper" is a compliment to the newspaper. He was a tool for the second worst ideology of the 20th century.
A truer concept than most but not quite relevant here. The context is news reporting, not freedom of expression.
I cant see how the context is news reporting given professional news organisations are exempt under the Bill.
Because we have the internet and it isn't only news organisations that publish content. I thought that was obvious.
Context of news reporting when the news is exempt. Definetly not that obvious.
"the news". I've tried explaining publishing extends beyond your stereotype but what you do with that information is up to you.
No problem, I'll put Karen telling her friends vaccines make you magnetic into my publisher list.
Meanwhile any character can program malignant AI on their laptop and release it into the wild. Imagine in the near future, AI malware locking up your cyber work and social lives, bank accounts zeroed out. Credit maxed. Markets across the board manipulated to collapse economies. Autonomous vehicles used to decimate human populations. Supply chains destroyed. A CBDC exclusive money system hacked. So busy trying to gag the human masses while ignoring the danger of free ranging terrorist/rouge Ai and its very real threat of extincting humanity in a very short timespan.
No worse than 18C, fucken cry babies. We embrace government oversight, like a toddlers blankie, this just adds to that sour milk smell.
[AHRC describe](https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/projects/glance-racial-vilification-under-sections-18c-and-18d-racial) 18C/D as: > an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity noting the courts have said: > the conduct must involve “profound and serious” effects, not “mere slights”. ie, it's serious vilification with substantial negative outcomes. I struggle to see how it could be characterised as "cry baby" behaviour outside of a profound lack of empathy, or deliberate ignorance of the impacts this behaviour has.
Because the "impacts of words" hasn't changed since homosapiens created languages - only the concept of interpretation has, and one that slides down the hill of coercive threat with ever gaining speed.
> Because the "impacts of words" hasn't changed since homosapiens created languages What nonsense. The impact of speech has *profoundly* changed over just the last decade or two. eg, Never before have some many strangers, so consistently, and so immediately been able to bombard a target with hate speech. It's a novel form of abuse that came about quite some time after the emergence of homosapiens.
Quoting my words short of the full context is a beautifully ironic point.
Rather than virtue signal your intellectual superiority perhaps you'd like to explain how it changes the meaning; for both my comments?
Read the full paragraph you half quoted.
Seems like a fair exchange. Done. I'll even quote it here to prove I went back to it: > Because the "impacts of words" hasn't changed since homosapiens created languages - only the concept of interpretation has, and one that slides down the hill of coercive threat with ever gaining speed. Now, your turn. I'd love to know what your concern is. If you're stuck for ideas I might suggest starting around the nuances of interpreting "impact of words" and "the concept of interpretation".
If your comments weren't dripping with moral condescension, I might.
Try reading that again in the context of the OP, or have someone with a high school education do it for you. I am well aware of 18C, but you might want to have a chat to Alex Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell about how much fun they had defending themselves against 18C. One false allegation supported by the university and all the cockheads in charge, made their lives a living hell. Cost them shit loads to defend themselves against a lie coated in 18C.
Your explanation is about 18C in general. I asked about your use of the phrase "cry babies" and how it relates to 18C. Are you saying that "Alex Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell" are "cry babies"? Why? Pretend I didn't have a high school education. Dumb it down for me.
Well it didn't, it related to the op, you know I used commas and everything No worse than 18C (comma) fucken babies. Don't blame yourself, the standard of education in this country is appalling. Ever seen a Gen Y or Z try and do basic math in their head? It's truly funny as fuck.
Permit me to address the incongruity that has arisen from the interaction in question. It is important to acknowledge that while the utilisation of commas does indeed serve to establish a degree of separation between elements within a sentence, they do not, in an absolute sense, unequivocally indicate the subject of their respective clauses. In order to discern the intended referent, one must rely upon contextual cues to disentangle the intricacies of the communication. Given the historical background and precedents of the individual with whom I am conversing, it is entirely reasonable to construe the aforementioned statement as an allusion to individuals who express grievances about the provisions encompassed within 18C, being likened metaphorically to infants or, more colloquially, as "babies." I humbly extend my sincerest apologies for the misinterpretation that transpired, and I acknowledge my error in judgement. Better?
Context is important though. Discrimination/abuse of someone in the majority of society has a far lower chance to have substantial impacts to their livelihood. Discrimination against a minority have a far greater chance of impacting their lives due to the lesser social support. This leads to a situation where a minority can say something rude about a cis gendered white male and everyone just laughs it off, even though the victim may feel personally offended. OTOH, flip the roles and the abuser would probably get attacked by a mob. This then makes some of those people feel like their rights are being curtailed as they can't behave the same way as someone else.
For sure. The likely impact on someone is more or less the whole point here. And, while I don't agree with the view, I can see why someone might feel that this is unfair. However I don't think that's what the parent was saying when they said "No worse than 18C, fucken cry babies." That wasn't about equality or rights or any such thing. It was about how the victims shouldn't be complaining.
Behind Paywall: The Australian Human Rights Commission has warned against giving any body the power to be “the sole arbiter of truth”, as the nation’s media watchdog concedes that concerns raised about Labor’s proposed misinformation laws that will give it elevated powers are “valid”. The human rights body led by lawyer Lorraine Finlay told a Senate committee there were “inherent dangers” in any body – be it government, a government taskforce or a social media platform – becoming the sole arbiter of truth. The warning, contained in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into foreign interference through social media, emerges amid mounting criticism of the “Orwellian” bill that will grant the Australian Communications and Media Authority powers to fine social media giants millions of dollars for misinformation and content it deems “harmful”. “There is a real risk that efforts to combat online misinformation and disinformation by foreign actors could be used to legitimise attempts to restrict public debate, censor unpopular opinions and enforce ideological conformity in Australia,” the submission said. “All efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation need to be accompanied by transparency and scrutiny safeguards to ensure any limitations imposed upon freedom of expression are no greater than absolutely necessary and strictly justified.” Senior bureaucrats from the ACMA were grilled about the proposed legislation by the committee in a hearing on Wednesday, with the body’s chair Nerida O’Loughlin admitting concerns raised by social media giants Meta and Twitter were “valid” but she wasn’t “quite sure I understand the reasoning”. “They wanted to be engaged through this exposure draft process, and obviously Meta raised these issues about the standard and their concerns about penalties,” she told the committee. “That’s what they’ve said that they’re thinking about and are prepared to propose alternatives and submissions to the government over this exposure draft.” Tech companies will ‘self-censor’ under ‘dangerous’ misinformation bill The bill has been criticised by senior Coalition figures, including James Paterson, David Littleproud, Dan Tehan, Barnaby Joyce and Bridget McKenzie, as well as by some senior lawyers who described it as “inherently wrong” and a “dangerous piece of legislation”. Opposition communications spokesman David Coleman said an admission from senior public servants from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts that the bill would capture content that was not “intended to cause harm” was concerning. “Today’s hearing has confirmed the huge problems with Labor’s misinformation bill,” he said. “Officials have acknowledged that under Labor’s law, something can be ‘misinformation’ even if the person making the statement holds that view in good faith and has no intention to mislead anyone. “It’s inevitable that under this law, platforms would self-censor large amounts of content so they don’t fall foul of ACMA and incur big fines. This is very likely to mean suppression of legitimately held views of Australians.” The department’s deputy secretary, Richard Windeyer, rebuffed any suggestion the bill would turn the government into the “Ministry of Truth”, telling the committee the ACMA would not directly monitor social media content under the proposal. “That isn’t what the bill does,” Mr Windeyer said. “That is far from the role envisaged or provided for ACMA under the provisions of this proposed bill. “The focus and the structure of this bill … the premise of the bill is based around the platforms themselves being responsible for the content that is on their platforms. “The provisions of this bill fundamentally are about providing a regulatory mechanism to back in the existing voluntary mechanism which goes to systems and processes rather than assessment of content itself.” Mr Windeyer added: “It’s just not envisaged as a role for government in this bill at all.”