Speak Freely Now - or Be Silenced

I take seriously my personal responsibility as a member of Australian society to uphold the principles and values that have made our nation one of the best places in the world to live and to bring up a family. That’s why, as an elector in the State of New South Wales and an Australian Citizen, I made the following submission to express my strong opposition to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024.

Submissions can be made via: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MisandDisinfobill

The best way to ensure your voice is heard is to lodge a submission via the parliament website. This way, your submission is guaranteed to be reviewed. You do not have to create a digital ID as some people think - you simply create an account using an email address and name.?This is to verify you are a human and not a computer bot. Your submission can remain confidential if you wish.

Submissions can also be made via email to [email protected]?

The Heart of Freedom

At the heart of a liberal democratic society lies the foundational principle of freedom of speech, thought, and expression. These rights are not just privileges but essential components of a functioning democracy, allowing citizens to engage in robust debate, challenge prevailing narratives, and advocate for change.

The imposition of government oversight to determine what constitutes misinformation or disinformation poses a significant threat to these freedoms. Such measures risk creating a chilling effect where individuals, organizations, and media outlets may self-censor for fear of reprisal or punishment. This is not an abstract concern; history has shown us that when the state becomes the arbiter of truth, dissenting voices are silenced, and critical discussions about controversial issues are stifled.

In a vibrant democracy, the ability to discuss, debate, and even disagree is vital. It is through these discussions that society evolves, policies improve, and citizens' rights are protected. The proposed legislation risks undermining this essential discourse by fostering an environment where individuals are hesitant to express their views, fearing they may be labelled as disseminators of misinformation.

Moreover, the potential for abuse of such a law is significant. Designating the government as the authority on truth raises serious concerns about bias, political agendas, and the erosion of civil liberties. The consequences of allowing the state to control public discourse could lead us down a path toward a totalitarian system, reminiscent of Orwellian "thought police" tactics. In such a system, the line between truth and falsehood becomes blurred, and the very essence of free thought is itself compromised.

The Central Role of Freedom of Speech in Public Discourse within a Democratic Society

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of public discourse in any democratic society. It enables individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and dissenting views, which are essential for a vibrant democracy. In an environment where diverse perspectives can be shared and debated, citizens can engage in meaningful dialogue that leads to better informed decision-making. The ability to speak freely fosters transparency and accountability, allowing the electorate to challenge government actions and advocate for their interests. Ultimately, the health of a democracy is reflected in its commitment to protecting and promoting freedom of speech, as it ensures that all voices can contribute to the ongoing conversation about the direction of society.

The Principle of the Social Contract in a Democratic Society

The principle of the social contract is fundamental to understanding the relationship between the government and its citizens in a democratic context, whether in a republic or a constitutional monarchy. This principle asserts that governmental authority is derived from the consent of the governed. In other words, citizens agree to be governed in exchange for the protection of their rights and interests. This mutual agreement underscores the notion that any power held by the state is legitimate only when it reflects the will of the people. Thus, the social contract highlights the responsibility of citizens to engage actively in governance, ensuring that their voices shape the policies and actions that affect their lives.

The Sovereignty of the People of Australia

In Australia, the ultimate authority rests with its citizens—the electors—who embody the sovereignty of the nation. This principle asserts that no legitimate authority exists above that of the people. Even the Monarch, in a constitutional monarchy, exercises sovereignty based on the consent of the governed. This foundational understanding emphasises the importance of civic engagement and active participation in the political process. When citizens recognise their role as the source of authority, they are empowered to hold elected officials accountable and demand transparency and integrity in governance. This direct link between the people and their government reinforces the democratic ideal that power must serve the public good.

Government as a Source of Misinformation and Disinformation

Government itself is often the most likely and most dangerous source of misinformation and disinformation within a society. A striking example of this can be seen in the actions of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) during the Covid-19 pandemic. AHPRA actively stifled dissent among medical practitioners, leading to the deregistration of physicians who expressed professional opinions contrary to prevailing public policy. This has deprived communities of trusted medical advisors and resulted in a significant decline in public trust in the medical profession and public health services as a whole. Such actions illustrate that no authority can be entirely trusted to monitor and restrict the expression of opinion in the public sphere.

Moreover, mainstream media has, throughout the pandemic, demonstrated itself to be a centrally controlled and monopolistic entity that often fails to perform its professional duty of care to society by challenging government policies. Instead, media outlets have regularly disseminated misinformation and disinformation on behalf of both domestic and foreign governments. A notable historical instance of this occurred in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in the late 1990s, when the assertion of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction was propagated widely, despite its falsehood. This situation underscores the reality that no private institution can be entrusted with the power to determine the boundaries of public discourse.

Additionally, the lack of valid protection for whistleblowers under government statutes further exemplifies the dangers posed by authorities that undermine rather than uphold democratic principles such as freedom of speech. In the past decade and longer, not a single whistleblower has received adequate protection from prosecution; instead, many have faced severe repercussions for exposing misconduct.

·????? Richard Boyle, a former Australian Taxation Office employee, leaked information revealing questionable debt recovery tactics and is currently facing 24 charges.

·????? David McBride, a former army lawyer who provided the ABC with documents relating to alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, is also facing imprisonment when his trial begins in November.

·????? Witness K, a former Australian Secret Intelligence Service officer, and Bernard Collaery, the lawyer representing him(!), both face prosecution for revealing an alleged illegal spying operation, with Collaery having already spent time in prison.

These cases highlight the systemic failure to protect those who speak out against wrongdoing, as the criminal and immoral actions they sought to expose remain unpunished. They also highlight the validity of public concern about the potential for egregious overreaches such as the currently proposed Bill.

These examples demonstrate that government and its institutions are in fact the most dangerous sources of misinformation and disinformation in any society. They serve to underscore the enormous risks that proceed from granting any entity authority to police public discourse. The consequences of silencing dissenting voices, as with punishing whistleblowers are profound, ultimately eroding trust in both government and the institutions that profess to safeguard public interests, and lead to increasingly authoritarian and ultimately totalitarian institutions, which, as history has shown cannot endure.

Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights

Australia has a manifest commitment to upholding the freedoms of its citizens, as evidenced by the Australian Human Rights Commission Act and its acceptance of international obligations, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These instruments enshrine fundamental rights that are critical for the functioning of a democratic society. However, the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill poses significant risks to these rights by threatening the very foundations of free expression and civil liberties. Below are key provisions of the ICCPR that Australia is obligated to uphold, alongside the potential violations posed by the bill.

·????? Article 19: Freedom of Expression

o?? Provision: Article 19 guarantees that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.

o?? Violation Risk: The proposed legislation, with its potential for censorship, would likely lead to the suppression of diverse viewpoints and critical discussions. This undermines individuals' rights to express themselves freely, creating an environment where fear of reprisal stifles open dialogue.

·????? Article 21: Right to Peaceful Assembly

o?? Provision: This article recognises the right to peaceful assembly, affirming that individuals should be able to gather and express dissenting opinions publicly.

o?? Violation Risk: By creating a chilling effect on free speech, the bill will discourage individuals from gathering to express their views, thus infringing upon their right to peaceful assembly. This is particularly concerning for those who wish to organise protests or demonstrations against government policies.

·????? Article 22: Freedom of Association

o?? Provision: Article 22 ensures that everyone has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions.

o?? Violation Risk: Legislation that seeks to control the boundaries of public discourse will hinder individuals and groups from organising around shared concerns, particularly when those concerns are not aligned with prevailing authorities. This fear of repercussions for expressing unpopular or dissenting views effectively stifles collective action and advocacy.

·????? Article 26: Equality Before the Law

o?? Provision: Article 26 states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection without discrimination.

o?? Violation Risk: Establishing an authority to moderate public discourse, regardless of its independence, risks targeting specific groups or opinions. This could lead to unequal treatment under the law based on ideological, political, or religious beliefs, undermining the principle of equality before the law.

In short, there is no possible legislation intended to restrict or moderate public discourse that can be compatible with the ICCPR or, indeed, with the fundamental principles and values of Western liberal democracy. At the core of these principles is the belief that open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas are essential for a functioning democracy. While ICCPR enshrines rights that protect individuals’ abilities to express their thoughts and opinions without fear of censorship or retribution, Australia's manner of ratification fails miserably to incorporate the necessary constraints upon government that adherence to these principles demands. Legislation strengthening these provisions not weakening them is what is needed.

The Only Remedy Against Misinformation and Disinformation

Legislation that seeks to limit public discourse inherently contradicts the foundational tenets of democratic governance, which rely on the active participation of citizens in public debate. A healthy democracy thrives on diverse perspectives, critical discussions, and the ability to challenge prevailing narratives. Therefore, any attempt to legislate against misinformation or disinformation is fundamentally incompatible with the values of freedom upon which democratic societies are established.

The only effective remedy against misinformation and disinformation in a healthy society is to robustly protect the freedoms of speech, thought, religion, and, most certainly, opinion. These freedoms form the bedrock of democratic discourse, allowing individuals to express diverse viewpoints and engage in meaningful debates about public policies. Such an environment is essential for fostering constructive dialogue that can lead to positive outcomes for society as a whole.

To ensure this robust framework for public discourse, there can be no "taboo" topics within the bounds of public decency. Open discussions must be encouraged, as they allow for the examination of various perspectives and the challenge of prevailing narratives. While protections against slander and libel exist to safeguard individuals from false statements that could cause individual harm, the broader right to express opinions must remain intact. This balance allows for critical debate while still respecting the rights of individuals, ensuring that all voices can be heard without fear of censorship or reprisal.

Electoral Reforms to Protect Freedom of Speech and Promote Public Accountability

Given the principles outlined above, it would follow that parliamentary privilege extending protections to representatives and senators ought properly to extend to every elector within a democratic society. Members of parliament are elected representatives, tasked with voicing the concerns and interests of their constituents, not with pursuing their personal ideologies and political preferences. Therefore, every citizen should possess the right to speak freely and engage in political discourse without fear of reprisal. Such an extension of privilege would do much to underscores the idea that all voices matter in the democratic process, fostering a more inclusive political landscape. By ensuring that every elector has the freedom to express their views, democracy can thrive as a system that truly represents the will and needs of its people.

Misinformation from government and political parties is rampant and poses a significant and persistent threat to the proper functioning of democratic institutions. Rather than stifling public discourse through measures aimed at controlling and limiting the expression of opinions by citizens, the necessary approach is to hold elected representatives and political parties accountable for the information they provide. For instance, politicians regularly make promises during election campaigns that they subsequently fail to fulfil once in office. This practice undermines public trust and ought properly to be treated as a form of electoral fraud, warranting criminalisation with heavy penalties. Such measures would incentivise politicians and political parties to moderate their statements and confine their electoral promises to the realms of truth and reason, thereby enhancing the integrity of the democratic process.

Media Reforms to De-monopolise Journalistic Endeavour

In addition, stronger regulations must be implemented and enforced upon corporations that disseminate news to ensure balanced and open discourse in the media. This should involve ensuring that both the authority and responsibility for the publication of political opinion is solely the domain of the editorial staff in any given media outlet. Strict prohibitions should be enforced against interference from corporate ownership in this editorial process. This separation would make a start towards safeguarding journalistic integrity and begin to promote more independent reporting.

Furthermore, limitations on media ownership ought to be legislated to prevent any single entity from owning, whether directly, or indirectly through a chain of ownership, more than a single media outlet or publication. Such regulations would reduce the risk of monopolistic practices that stifle diverse voices in the media landscape, promoting a pluralistic environment where a variety of perspectives can be represented. By ensuring that no single corporation can dominate the media narrative, society can foster a more balanced and inclusive public discourse.

Strengthening Free Discourse in Social Media

Social media plays a central role in facilitating public commentary on journalistic discourse, significantly enhancing the breadth and relevance of political and civil discussions. Rather than attempting to restrict or control these platforms, efforts should be made to encourage and develop their potential for fostering open dialogue. Social media enables individuals from diverse backgrounds to express their views, engage in debates, and share information, creating a more participatory democratic environment.

This digital landscape allows for real-time feedback on news articles and political commentary, empowering citizens to challenge narratives, share alternative perspectives, and hold media outlets accountable. By facilitating this exchange, social media helps to democratise information, giving a voice to those who may otherwise be marginalised in traditional media settings. The focus of regulation should be upon safeguarding the freedom of public discourse against corporate interferences such as using algorithmic means to shape patterns of discourse, and the limit exposure of ideas deemed unfavourable by the platform owners.

Encouraging the responsible use of social media can lead to a more informed and engaged electorate. Instead of bringing these platforms "to heel," we should focus on developing digital literacy programs that equip citizens with the skills to critically assess information, discern fact from fiction, and engage constructively in online discussions. Such an approach would promote a culture of responsible discourse while maximising the benefits of social media as a tool for civic engagement.

No Limits on the Freedom of Speech Can Be Acceptable

In conclusion, addressing misinformation effectively requires a paradigm shift that prioritises accountability among politicians, restores and safeguards the independence of media organisations, and thoroughly protects the publicly expressed opinion of electors as the bedrock of our political system as thoroughly as it currently protects their representatives. By implementing these measures, we can strengthen democratic institutions and foster a more informed electorate, ultimately contributing to a healthier democratic process. However, any legislation that targets the opinions of any private individuals, especially an elector, utterly undermines the very values and principles upon which Australia as a nation was founded.

?

?