Australia’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combat Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 continues to spark heated debate, with critics claiming the bill risks undermining freedom of expression.
The proposed bill, which targets disinformation related to elections, public health and critical infrastructure, would require tech companies to establish codes of conduct.
Platforms that fail to self-regulate will face standards imposed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which would oversee enforcement. This could include fines of up to 5% of total global revenue for platforms that do not comply with the new rules.
However, free speech advocates warn that this could have a chilling effect on legitimate public debate and potentially limit people’s ability to criticize public institutions.
Vague language
Matthew Sigel, VanEck’s head of digital assets, emphasized on social media that the bill categorizes certain speech acts, such as those that “could harm public confidence in the banking system or financial markets,” as potential grounds for punishment.
Sigel expressed concern about the broad and vague language and suggested that normal discussions about financial institutions could be unfairly addressed under the guise of misinformation.
Sigel’s concerns echo those of other free speech advocates, who argue that the bill could inadvertently stifle public criticism of key institutions, including financial markets, and encourage tech platforms to over-censor in an effort to avoid fines to avoid.
In addition, critics, including legal experts and opposition figures, have raised alarm over the bill’s vague definitions of “disinformation” and “misinformation,” arguing that such language leaves too much room for subjective interpretation and overreach.
Doing nothing is ‘not an option’
The legislation comes amid a broader global movement to regulate tech giants and reduce the spread of misinformation, but the setback in Australia signals an ongoing debate about balancing free speech and public safety.
Despite the criticism, the Australian government claims the bill is necessary to combat the spread of misinformation that threatens democracy, public health and infrastructure.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland defended the legislation, saying doing nothing about disinformation is “not an option” given the threat it poses to public safety and democracy. She emphasized that the government expects technology platforms to comply with Australian law and has warned companies against threatening to circumvent or undermine these regulations.
She also emphasized that the amended version of the bill ensures that certain types of content are explicitly protected, as the government seeks to strike a balance between combating harmful disinformation and upholding freedom of expression.
These include professional news content, but also all artistic and religious content – which are considered crucial for free expression and public debate. However, critics remain skeptical about the scope of this protection, with key concerns revolving around the possibility of subjective interpretations of what constitutes protected content.
The bill is expected to be introduced in parliament next week, paving the way for further heated debate over its wider social implications.
