Proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Laws: A Mechanism to Suppress Dissent

The major parties have pulled out all stops in marketing proposed laws framed at combatting misinformation and disinformation, and that singular narrative has, for the most part, been adopted by a mainstream media increasingly content to take the path of least resistance, the easy path, and regurgitate the narrative that these laws are for the protection of the public, when a closer look at the proposed laws reveal they will enable the suppression of dissenting voices and thereby potentially limit access to credible alternative voices.

In a Nutshell

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 proposes, among many other things, to increase the power of a government agency, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to decide whether information is classified as misinformation (false or inaccurate information intended to deceive) or disinformation (misinformation intended to push a particular social or political agenda), and require digital platforms to regulate the publication of that information as well as justify any such publications by way of onerous reporting obligations.

The Stated Purpose of the Laws

The federal government claims the purpose of the proposed laws is to:

1. Provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with more power to mitigate risks of misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms,
2. Boost transparency regarding how digital communication platforms operate in regards to misinformation and disinformation, and
3. Provide digital communication platforms with the tools to respond to misinformation and disinformation.

New Powers of Media Regulator

The government says this will be achieved by providing ACMA with new powers that require digital communications providers to mitigate risks of misinformation or disinformation by, among other things, requiring them to:

1. Publish risk assessment reports regarding misinformation and disinformation,
2. Publish policies regarding how to manage misinformation and disinformation, and
3. Publishing media literacy plans to identify misinformation and disinformation.

The new laws also give ACMA the power to:

1. Obtain information and documents relating to misinformation,
2. Make rules requiring platforms to retain records and prepare reports,
3. Approve misinformation codes and set out measures to mitigate risk,
4. Determine misinformation standards for sections of the digital platforms industry, and
5. Publish information relating to misinformation and disinformation.

These powers go way further than those implemented in any other Western democracy, and has the potential to act as a means to censor information by imposing unrealistic expectations and making politically motivated directives to online platforms, thereby pushing the prevailing narrative and suppressive dissenting publications, whether the information is credible or not.

A Way to Suppress Dissenting Voices

While suppressing misinformation and disinformation is certainly important in the digital age, a raft of legislation has already been implemented in recent years – invariably touted as a way to address the problem of ‘fake news’, but which has been ineffective and, if anything, simply resulted in a degree of unjustified internet censorship.

The new law admittedly go further than those that currently exist, but the overriding concern is that giving a federal government department such extensive powers could be counterproductive to the interests of a functioning democracy, removing some genuine misinformation and disinformation while also removing that which is contrary to the narrative and interests of the government of the day but which may still be credible, thereby restricting or even prohibiting access to dissenting sources and voices and enabling members of the public to formulate their own opinions.

It is telling that most segments of the mainstream media are supportive of the proposal, as it is unlikely they will be adversely affected to any great extent – and perhaps they see it as a way to combat the ‘threat’ (or perhaps the correct work is ‘competition’) of alternative news sources being increasingly relied upon by members of the general public.

The wash-up for many who have read the proposals is that they are more likely to result in the suppression of dissenting voices than have any real impact on the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, and thereby represent a threat to democratic ideals of free communication and access to information.

One might go a step further and loosely compare the new powers as a way for Big Brother (the federal government) to give its Ministry for Information (ACMA) a mechanism for better regulate thought, by being able to determine which information is permitted and which is not.