The Australian government’s Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill has sparked considerable debate, raising concerns about how such a law could impact free speech, the regulation of public discourse, and the role of government in determining the truth. The Bill, in its first reading, seeks to address the spread of false information online, a growing concern in an age where social media has amplified the reach of misinformation and disinformation.
However, while the intentions behind the Bill may be valid, the implementation and potential overreach pose significant threats to fundamental rights such as freedom of expression. This blog post provides an overview of the Bill, discusses its potential implications, and shares my recent email submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications, which outlines my concerns.
Background on the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill
The Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill was introduced to curb the spread of false information on digital platforms that can cause public harm. It gives regulators, such as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the power to oversee digital platforms’ responses to misinformation and disinformation, including fining platforms that fail to take adequate measures to prevent the spread of harmful content.
The Bill defines misinformation as “false, misleading, or deceptive content” and disinformation as “content that is deliberately spread with the intention to deceive.” These definitions are outlined in Part 1, Section 6 of the Bill. However, the broad language used raises concerns over how these terms will be interpreted and applied.
In Section 17, the Bill grants the ACMA the ability to create enforceable standards for digital platforms. The ambiguity in these provisions is a primary concern, as it could lead to an overly cautious approach by platforms, resulting in the suppression of legitimate debates or controversial opinions in order to avoid penalties.
Concerns Raised in My Submission
In response to these issues, I have written a formal email submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications, which you can read in full below:
Subject: Submission Regarding Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill – First Reading
Dear Committee Secretary,
I am writing to provide my submission in response to the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill – First Reading. After reviewing the Bill in light of the terms of reference, I would like to highlight several concerns regarding its potential impact on free speech, public discourse, and regulatory oversight.
1. Freedom of Expression: The Bill poses a significant risk to free speech, as it lacks precise definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation.” In the absence of clear parameters, it could suppress legitimate discourse, especially in critical areas such as political debate, scientific discussions, and social issues. Any legislation of this nature must be carefully balanced to avoid infringing on civil liberties, as emphasized in the terms of reference.
2. Proportionality and Necessity: While the Bill aims to address harmful content, its broad scope could lead to disproportionate actions against speech that is controversial but not necessarily harmful. The terms of reference call for regulatory measures that are both necessary and proportionate, yet the Bill’s current provisions seem too expansive and open to interpretation, risking over-enforcement on differing expert opinions or valid discussions of public interest.
3. Transparency and Accountability: A core element of the terms of reference is the need for transparent decision-making processes. However, the Bill provides excessive discretion to regulators and social media platforms without sufficient oversight or appeal mechanisms. This lack of transparency could result in inconsistent application and undermine public confidence in the regulatory process, especially if enforcement is seen as biased or politically motivated.
4. Impact on Independent Media and Minority Voices: There is a risk that the Bill will disproportionately affect smaller media outlets and minority voices, who may not have the resources to challenge claims of misinformation. This could undermine diversity of thought, a key pillar of democratic society. The terms of reference stress the importance of preserving diversity, yet the Bill as it stands could lead to the suppression of dissenting but valuable perspectives.
5. Chilling Effect on Public Debate: The broad provisions of the Bill may result in a chilling effect, where individuals and platforms self-censor to avoid penalties. This directly contradicts the terms of reference’s aim of fostering informed public discourse. A fear of retribution could stifle debate on key societal issues, inhibiting the public’s ability to critically engage with important topics.
6. Effectiveness of Measures: Finally, while the Bill aims to curb misinformation, it may unintentionally drive harmful content to less regulated or private platforms, where it becomes harder to counter. The terms of reference emphasize the need for effective measures, and I believe promoting media literacy and critical thinking would be a more sustainable and effective solution than punitive measures.
I urge the Committee to reconsider the Bill in its current form and adopt a more balanced approach that aligns with the terms of reference, particularly with regard to safeguarding free speech, ensuring proportionality, and maintaining transparency and accountability in enforcement.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Excerpts from the Bill
One of the most critical sections of the Bill is Part 2, Section 19, which grants the ACMA the power to make standards and issue notices to digital platforms. It states: “The ACMA may give a compliance notice to a digital platform corporation if the ACMA reasonably believes that the corporation has breached an enforceable standard.” The phrase “reasonably believes” lacks specificity, leaving too much room for subjective judgment.
Another section worth noting is Part 3, Section 25, which allows the ACMA to impose civil penalties. This section highlights the punitive nature of the Bill, with fines imposed on platforms that fail to comply with its broad standards. The risk here is that platforms may over-comply by silencing legitimate debate, fearing fines or reputational damage.
The Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill raises important questions about the role of government in regulating information online and its impact on democratic freedoms. While there is a need to address the harms caused by the spread of false information, the approach taken by the Bill may unintentionally harm public discourse, limit free speech, and reduce accountability. As outlined in my submission, it is crucial that any legislation on this issue be carefully balanced to ensure it does not infringe on civil liberties or suppress diverse voices. A more nuanced approach, one that promotes critical thinking and media literacy, may be a more effective and sustainable solution in the long run.
References
