The "MAD Bill" - Digital platforms and misinformation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лют 2025
- UPDATE: The Government has announced that it is abandoning this bill, as it could not obtain sufficient support in the Senate for it to pass.
This video explains how the Australian Commonwealth Government's 'Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is intended to operate and the potential problems with it.
It explains the four things the bill does: (1) requiring transparency from digital platforms about their policies and procedures regarding misinformation; (2) requiring them to create records and provide information to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) about how they deal with misinformation; (3) requiring industry associations to create codes for digital platforms, which once ACMA approves of them, become compulsory; and (4) empowering ACMA to impose standards on the digital platforms if there is no code, or it becomes deficient, or there are exceptional and urgent circumstances.
It then discusses the meaning of misinformation and disinformation, who decides what is false, misleading and deceptive, and what amounts to serious harm. It also notes the exceptions and the potential impact of the law upon the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.
For those who want to check what I say against the terms of the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum, they can be found here: www.aph.gov.au....
Thank you for this. I can't believe this video is even required. What a ludicrous piece of legislation and how it was ever proposed is, again, beyond belief.
UA-cam never even gave me the courtesy of tagging my posts during the COVID era. They simply deleted them - well over a hundred of them. All of them were 100% factually correct so pardon my concern about this bill is denying me my fundamental freedoms to state an opinion, especially when it is actually a fact.
I’m very grateful that you shared your opinions and thoughts in the Senate enquiry the other day. I felt it brought great insight and balance to the discussion.
People used to be allowed to come to their own conclusions when presented with information .
So what's the solution to the "dark" web and all that's on it ?
@@Bristolcentaurus Stay off it .
@@Bristolcentaurus Never been near it. Criminal activity is boring at the least, as well as repugnant. Encourage people to understand the value of "Philippians 4:8. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
its a different world. digital platforms are not equal to u, they are far beyond us and the government needs to hold the PLATFORMS to a high standard
That was an excellent summary. Thank you very much for taking the time to outline the bill and its implications, Professor.
Four things:
1. Legislative creep concerns me here, in much the same way as the e-Safety Commissioner was instituted to protect children, and now appears to have morphed into a de facto internet censor with few if any checks and balances.
2. As you said, the prospect of heavy-handed censorship beyond the restrictions of the bill, by the platforms, merely to ensure they never breach the rules, thereby avoiding penalties, is real. It is easy to read between the lines and surmise that the Government's real agenda here might be exactly this outcome, inasmuch as it will almost certainly curtail the publication of comment which the Government does not like.
3. The definition framework is appallingly loose. Perhaps this is by design.
4. One minor (and hopefully constructive) criticism of your commentary: 'enormity' is not merely a reference to something being large in scale. It's a reference to large-scale wickedness/immoral conduct. 'The enormity of a crime,' for example, relates to the scale of moral transgression which took place, not the crime's magnitude in other respects.
Keep up the excellent work - I find the matters you cover really interesting. You also seem very balanced on contentious issues such as this one.
All the best.
Thanks.
Tell us in a video what approach might work. This ones dead in the water but then these services don't let you to easily remove content, comments or simply delete your self like I did today!
Define "reasonable", define "serious harm". Absolutely no chance it will be used to curtail unfavourable political discourse. And pigs might fly.
Thank you for providing your insights and perspectives on this issue, I found it very helpful. For me the question is WHY? When one ponders this, the motivation for the govt to press this through becomes obvious to a thinking person, and it is certainly NOT for our so called 'protection'. Also ask yourself; 'Why are they and the mainstream media exempt from these proposed laws?' Again, the answer will become obvious. And so on; stand up for your freedom before you lose it by default.
The government is not exempt under the bill. Under the previous draft, government material was excluded, but that was removed from this bill. Best to read the bill before making such comments.
A skeptical might wonder if there is an election looming 😂
There are so many avenues for this to be corrupted. Just imagine a private company that is unhappy with comments about their product on UA-cam. They are a donor to the ruling party. Through back channels and unofficially the message is passed on that the government is unhappy. Not wishing themselves exposed UA-cam suppressed this content. All happens without you knowing, with no recourse even if you knew that your content has been removed. And your content was absolutely truthful
If this was all so innocent, then it needs to also apply to 1. The Government/politicians, 2. The MSM/Legacy media, 3. Fact Checking Bodies/Academic bodies. When the Victorian Bar provides input which they then find has been twisted when incorporated should be telling you that there's fkery afoot here.
In the US we used these laws to demonize public media from only very specific countries. While the underlying problem is a major problem, many of the proposed solutions I have seen appear to potentially create new avenues for abuse.
It does apply to the government and politicians, as well as to the media, other than professional news services.
@@constitutionalclarion1901Funny... The version I read excluded Federal Government and State Government.😁
@@nullgod Maybe you were reading the old exposure draft. The current bill is linked in the description box.
You're amazing. Thank you for taking the time to spell it out.
It does seem inherently flawed, vague and prone to misuse, whether by the platforms or government. Kind of leans towards a "shoot first, ask questions later" style of discourse...
Thanks again
It looks like the Senate is going to block this bill so all this will hopefully be moot. It is a horrible ugly bill and unworthy of any Australian politician.
I hope this is true.
I cannot believe there is even a single person, member of the public, who would think this is a good idea. So why TF is the government trying to sneakily pass this bill!!!
And yet the Teals voted for it in the House of Reps....
The logic is that false propaganda should be blocked. The issue, as the good Professor reminds us, is that some of the things being regulated are opinions rather than facts, and as such different people may have honestly held but different opinions.
If the legislation were strictly limited to matters of independently verifiable fact (this politician said X, the inflation rate is up/down, immigrants eating pets, and so on) it would be at least workable. It's not so limited, and so risks reinventing Pravda, "official truth."
An example, farmers have been shut down as peddling misinformation, yet academics from universities have had their opinions pushed as policy.
There is evidence aplenty on the web and elsewhere proving the farmers who work the land as being correct. Yet government policy based on academic misinformation has completely changed the management of their land and made it less productive and also less biodiverse.
Just look at the great barrier reef overlays that are based wholly on misinformation.
we all know why
Such censorship only leads to one conclusive finally.
Albaneses response to the failure of his "legacy" project, the Voice ! It is personal with him, nothing to do with the good of the nation. Labors "Internet Filter" attempt failed fifteen years ago because it was unworkable and impossible to implement, and this will fail as well. Disgraceful and totally absurd !!!!!
They put Galileo in prison because he said "the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth, the Earth revolved around the sun"
The Church and government didn't like their credibility being challenged and the people thinking they didn't know what they were talking about
Any additional government control is unnecessary. The whole bill should be binned. BIN THE BILL.
Thank you
❤️🇦🇺🪃🥷✅
The first group the bill needs to be applied to, is the govt itself.
Government content is not excluded by the bill (although it was in the exposure draft, which must be where this idea came from).
@@deanpd3402 to right and all the woke academics employed by the government
“It also excludes professional news content”… Why?
It’s an absolute joke that the ones this needs to target most are being held the least accountable.
I love your videos!!!
All your videos have been absolutely invaluable! Many people in politics aren't aware of half the things you talk about, which I think are so extremely important to being effective at legislating or governing.
Thanks.
There’s nothing to worry about. Our government would never abuse its power.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Remember folks it's a fine line between governing and dictating.
You decide 🇦🇺 Australia.
Correct. Those trying to shut down the abc are trying to shut down free speech, they are trying to censor the MSM.
Two years ago I was “permanently restricted” for inauthenticity. This is the first time I have an idea what that meant. I’m a 72 year old great-grandmother NOT a bot! I thought it was because I’d shared independently funded, published research papers that opposed the “accepted” narrative.
Furthermore,earlier this year I shared a link to an article featuring an interview with retired barrister, Julian Gillespie. I was mortified to receive a message from the platform thus:
“It looks like you helped arrange or encourage sexual activities.”
“Your message goes against our Community Standards on adult sexual solicitation.” (Screenshot taken)
Their own AI provided this response when I provided the url and brief explanation:
““After reviewing the article, I can confirm that it does not contain any sexually explicit material. The content is focused on discussing legal and political issues, and there is no inappropriate or offensive content.”
My point is: I am one of 3 billion plus users of FB. How many others have been victims of this unjust treatment and how can we trust them to do the right thing in the future.
At least I now know that I can’t be arrested for their errors in judgement, so thank you for explaining that Professor Twomey.
One part of the Bill involves requiring the digital platforms to publish how they make their assessments and what processes they have for complaints etc. This would hopefully improve their policies and procedures by exposing them to public criticism and analysis.
@@constitutionalclarion1901. Thank you. I welcome that transparency. :)
It’s the same as getting a traffic infringement in the mail from a speed/red light etc camera. There’s no person, but the photo still gets taken. The the photo is ‘fact checked’, by someone somewhere hundreds or thousands of kms from the camera, not by a local… by someone that doesn’t know the intersection, then fact checker decide to still send that infringement out. Then the person copping the fine has to go disprove it. Guilty until proven innocent…. Except the person would be able to go to a physical outlet to object and be able to get some objection ‘heard’
All this actually means is that the words mean whatever a particular judge decides that they mean on any given day. That is NOT a comforting thought!
this is the beginning to what they really wish to do
How will this bill treat transgender and their claims that they are indistinguishable from the sex they are claiming to be? Will a person not accepting such claims be targetted by this bill?
Interpretion is everything.
Thank you for your expert explanation.
And thank you for speaking up for all of us to reinforce the human right of free speech!
We might not like what people have to say, but we can not repress peoples right to talk about things the government might not like on any particular day.
To me the explanatory memorandum was horrific.
Well put.
There's an unprecedented level of 'dinner party' (cornwallis types not invited) interest in this misinformation, and with civilian disquiet being aroused in a way that is likely to see matters of historical significance be brought to the fore time & time again, the consequences may well be of a Nature none of you had ever contemplated... should have left well enough alone, since you all havent, dogs will be awakened and the bite will be more severe than the bark!
Note, the hidden dragon in the guide quoted, targets alleged right wing activity, but no left winged activity is given. I'm harmed by that... The relevant question is: Are we to feel that the left wing does less tricks than the right wing, due to examples given, or is it gas lighting to make the left wing appear more innocent? No, this is not addressed against the speaker of the video, but the information resource quoted. We need the right to ask, does the information resource target serious examples of left wing tricks aswell, or is it truth, that the left doesn't do that much of these tricks compared to the right, and how serious the tricks quoted were? That's debating the truth of the matter. But, there are people they act as if offended, harmed, that the question is asked, or authority is questioned, at all, and it goes down hill from there. We live in ... times.
We also note, that protections are given under the guise of activities the left tend to dominate, is the arts. So, how is that fair, reasonable, or constitutional at all. Maybe I should dress up and become a comedian, and hold performances at inconvenient places for parties that support this bill? These arts can be used to misinformed, and brain wash people to supporting a particular side. We need to get rid of the loop hole allowing lying misinformation that way, or abandone the legislation.
So the political parties do not want scrutiny over them especially in government
The citizens are not allowed to know what is going on
Thank you for clarifying that the mad bill is a dogs breakfast: a feast for lawyers to ponder the finer points of the meaning of "truth" at a victim's expense; where the victim is the accused and the accuser is the victim. No wonder the creators of the bill have exempted themselves from this bill.
As I have frequently said, there is no exemption for politicians or the government from this bill.
The only role for lawyers here would be if a digital platform were prosecuted for a civil offence for breaching a code or a standard. The bill does not provide for the prosecution of people who post misinformation.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I stand corrected on the prosecution of people in the bill, but we do not have to look far to see draconian prosecution of individuals in our mother country. Re exemptions for politicians and the government: their main platform is the "professional news content" (under ACMA) which in my view has become professional only in the making of money and echoing in the chamber. Where is the bill that makes the complicated less complicated, that removes laws by consolidating rather than adding more laws?
The answer to false opinions and claims is more opinions and claims not fewer.
Trump in his speech stated he will remove the mis/dis information from the vernacular!
Thank-you so much Anne. I left Australia in mid September for the USA. It was so easy to be caught up in the euphoria of what has been happening there and I have only just realised that a possible disaster has been unfolding in Australia. Elon Musk, Robert Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard worried that the freedom of speech in America and in turn, the rest of the western world were being compromised. These three warriors have joined with Donald Trump (and so have numerous others) to save the free world from the cancer of totalitarian control. This Orwellian bid for control that is evident in this "MAD" mad Bill.
The very idea that there are entities excluded from this (or any other) is why this bill must be defeated.
Sure, the bill targets platforms, but the penalties from the bill will likely force the platforms (especially X which is the main target) to leave Australia. Which will in turn impact the ability for Australian citizens to participate in free speech platforms. So this bill will ultimately impact Australian citizens.
Our government is currently filled with WEF Manipulators, and they are fundamentally cowardly bullies.
So, the loosest areas seem to be directed at those expressing political discontent.
They know we aren't happy and don't want to let us share and discuss that widely.
“Safe and effective”.
Dear Constitutional Clarion.
It's always bothered me greatly that unlike other liberal democracies (e.g. New Zealand, Canada), Australia doesn't have a charter or bill of rights guaranteeing free speech. I noticed that Australia has ratified the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
"19(2) 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."
So how does that not legally clash with the proposed legislation?
Thanks for all your very interesting videos. I sometimes worry about the reaction you get from some commentors on this channel. As if they have decided you are personally responsible for any Australian laws (or proposed laws) they don't happen to approve of. My view is - don't blame the messenger.
Thanks. And thanks for your many sensible replies in the face of the some of the more abusive or eccentrically-minded comments I receive. It is good to have someone else out there explaining things, without having always to do it myself.
Article 19 of the ICCPR also permits exception. It says that the right may be subject to restrictions, as provided by law that are necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others and for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.
The Government provides a 'Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights' for each bill. It justifies any limits on human rights, by reference to Australia's human rights obligations in treaties. It is included in the Explanatory Memorandum to each bill. So you can always see how they justify provisions. Have a look at the EM from pages 5-21 . The explanation in relation to freedom of expression is at pp 18-21.
As always, tip top and thank you😀
You are most welcome.
Are politicians and public servants so bored and out of work that these sort of bills are dreamt up?
Gus,
I'd hazard a pallet of my favourite beverage on these "shackles" NOT coming out of boredom and idle hands. 😂
What it's meant to do and how it's actually enforced will be worlds apart.
New laws are very similar to new technology. History has shown that those with power and authority first use it for bad before they use it for good. Usually, to enforce their power. And in this case, we are facing a similar situation.
Our politicians have the maturity and, seemingly, the intellect of children.
The world was flat and was also verifiable at the time when that was the consensus.
Now the consensus is that the world is a globe & verifiable now that this is the consensus !
I believe the world is close to being a globe.
We need to allow free expression
no matter how absurd it seems to be.
I still believe it will be pushed through.
Thank you for addressing this and other important issues.
Whilst I have at times had some differing views, your inputs always make me think.
Thank you for covering this and encouraging people to actually read the bill. There is so much blatantly incorrect information about this bill, it drives me nuts! Great break down of the actual mechanism as well - the role of ACMA and standards vs codes.
Worth mentioning that the bill has not yet passed the senate, so there is the possibility of further amendments, if it passes at all (which is seeming unlikely.)
I’ll bet my bottom dollar that it passes, Labor, greens and teals have the majority and they’re all in on it.
@@ricochet2977 I wouldn't be so sure. The only "teal" in the senate is Pocock (who is leaning against), and the greens actually abstained in the house - not sure how they will vote in the senate though. Labor needs the greens and at least 3 more by my count.
I read the latest version I could find and it still had the 3 exemptions in it (politicians, media, academia) and I’m learning in the comments that there’s a newer version with those removed. It’s still a terrible idea for a bill. Especially given the misinformation considered fact in many areas over the last decade or so.
@@NoRegertsHere The exemptions (described as 'excluded dissemination') are listed in section 16 of the proposed bill - which is linked in the description box to this video. There is no exclusion for politicians. The exclusions are for (a) parody or satire; (b) 'professional news content' - not the media as a whole; and (c) 'reasonable dissemination of content for any academic, artistic, scientific or religious purpose'.
@constitutionalclarion1901 There shouldn't be an exclusion for parody, or satire. Drum roll please.. :) There is simply so much information that comes out of one side of politics.
But on a philosophical look, we need a way for things to be frankly and freely, and fiercely, debated. I imagine that exemptions were given to politicians for this purpose as well as others to academia and the press, assuming they would all put in a reasonable professional effort, with no unobjective leanings or political bias in one direction, as we know is not the case. But, what about media coverage and comment in general, or documentaries, which is a multimedia form of book? But, what about text books, and nonfiction books in general? Are we to start taking the morning shows and commentary shows up on their comments, and I have seen many things? As a once avid watcher of media watch, also, I have issue with the authority chosen. What will be the odds of what leanings the eventual staff of such an authority have over time? Of my freinds that I would say are left leaning, it is surprising how many I see operating polling booths, it makes me wonder about creep over time. Why isn't the online professional news shows and pages, given the same protection? Isn't it rather like calling Jullian Assange a non journalist, and a traitor? Have we learnt anything? Isn't it the same exact thing, because he is not a controlled sanctioned media? I do not wish to get into what former and existing intelligence agents are saying in the US, or other official reports, on media rooms, or direct government political contact with social media. We must avoid that at all costs. What about professional, expert and academic free speech outside of papers? The online media company has the right to comment, and is needed, because they are unsantioned media. But, the online social media companies, acting as the dogs of war, can rip them and users apart, effectively diminishing free speech dissemination. On all sides of politics it requires honest thinker leaders to freely, fiercely and frankly, assess, present, relay and debate issues to the mases. To do it better than most will, so that the msses themselves can have more informed debate. So, the law becomes more crippled, in respect of the affect on the electorate, through interference in the process, with diminished ability to have a public murmering or upswell, in objection and questioning, against things in all forms of media. Democracy diminished.
We need to go back to the days, when average Australians had more self educated informed knowledgable discussion and debate about political issues, rather than polarised, captured and dictated thought. To encourage these things, or otherwise we are becoming, and will become, a more paternalistic childish society. Which once the child becomes the unruly teenager, can put us at risk.
My previous submissions to a few bills, were a better and more lient than this, which I can no longer remember correcty, but went along the lines of protected speech being: An honest reasonable belief that something is true; Something would have to be concretely disproven, but was still open to honest reasoned debate about that; and lient provisions for actual harm. An semi open market for refinement of ideas to facts.
My apologies if this has not be so well written, I'm very worn out from it, and had to go back and correct many things. Have a good morning.
Thank you so much for your clear discussion of this bill. I think there are many who find it confusing as to where and what the government is trying to achieve with this bill .
From the brief amount that you spoke about it would seem that more issues pop up whenever the bill is scrutinised.
I , for one , do not envy anyone that must make sense if this legislation.
Again thank you.
What could possibly go wrong with this?
PS. Anyone read the headlines from The UK "15 years for VIEWING anything far right" & "time/imprisonment for silently praying in public places".
That surely will NEVER happen in Australia!
Wow this puts the whole COVID narrative on notice.
It would be unworkable from a app platform point of view, millions of posts per day is impossible to deal with under the "MAD" bill.
how can we get any politician who was involved in this Bill tested for Sociopathy and Psychopathy....as anyone that would even think of, or involve themselves in such a bill probably are.
Democracy depends on freedom of speech and a free media.
Genuinely free speech is democracy's cornerstone.
As an early US revolutionary said: It (freedom of speech) cannot be limited without being lost.
The government simply requires and enforces, through substantial fines, media companies to do the silencing.
What is ignored here is the sceptical citizen's ability and right to hear and assess media claims.
Citizens ought to be able to question any claims, including by governments or their "approved experts" and this applies also to claims of being "harmed" by the opinions of others.
For a very comprehensive discussion of free speech see Forrester, Finlay and Zimmerman's: No Offence Intended.
Also the late US law professor Ronald Dworkin's articles, including on ridicule and free speech.
Thank you for this video; it is both informative and essential.
It's informative for people who actually watched it.
@mindi2050 I can confirm I did (watch) actually. 😁
@@bmyhrr That's good. I was actually thinking about some of the other comments from people who clearly hadn't watched the video, and seemed to think Prof Twomey was promoting the proposed legislation.
One man's misinformation is truth to another; and another man's truth is misinformation to another. Do not impose your 'facts' on me. I get to decide and no one else.
The problem is, that misinformation is subjective. sure there woukd even be differences in opinion between eg the current goverment and some of the opposition parties.
As the wording of the bill is also vague, the goverment could use the legislation to prevent critism of itself, or to censure other hsrmless information.
Even if the current goverment thinks it can be trusted. There will be future goverments that may not be pro democracy. So eg a current opposition party could in future censure any pro current goverment oarty as misinfirmation if it gets into power and hence become very difficukt to vote out. We need a more robust and rigorous system thst is not open to abuse and also needs to be fair and predictable.
It is not reasonable to expect a social media platform to be able to accurately predict what Australia's Ministry of Truth will deem to be truth full.
The bill ,along with e safety 16 years and over is a trojan for digital id and control.
I agree 100%
Did you listen to the video? Stop clutching your pearls and being a snowflake.
@LuciannaG123 I listen and have been listening since The liberal party tried it with Morrison, go and learn something.
You seem to be into snow flakes and pearl clutching.
Thank you it’s far too ambiguous and therefore platforms will simply remote move content to avoid the possibility of these massive fines therefore it’s far too dangerous
Our education system should give adults facts and skills so each individual can know or discover through research the truthfulness or falsehood of the topic. This gives each citizen the ability to decide for themselves and then support their position. A government department in control of the status of information would move the right to every Australian to reach their own conclusion to the political elite.
Very clear and concise on all the issues. It appears a large portion of the potential/inevitable problems stems from the myriad of subjectivity that flows from “policing “ the intended purpose of the bill. Also, the well made point in the video that platforms are likely to err on the side of caution and be overly censorious.
'misinformation' should be an objective standard, it is now used as 'I don't like them, so censor them'...
Am I allowed to critique the climate debate?
Yes.
Definitions seem broad enough to me to censor that
What debate?
Scrap this bill in its entirety. We don't need it!
Basically, thank god for Trump.
@@davidmcbryde3570 you like fascism?
@@LuciannaG123 I like the opposite of fascism: freedom of speech.
@davidmcbryde3570 that's what Donald wants to take away. He has already stated that he will shut down all the fake news channels.
That is censorship on a grand scale. That is shutting down freedom of speech. But you love the orange conman.
Onya ,,,,,,I'm gonna give you $275 of your electricity bill ,,,,,,was it miss or dis information or an out and out lie
2 weeks between conspiracy and fact.
It was a long one indeed but very edifying and worthwhile.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Great explanation thankyou. The objections from the Australian people in my opinion reflect the ambiguity of who will decide what is mis/dis information and the active mistrust of all government organisations and also corporate organisations. The convergence of cost of living, war, pandemic hangover, woke ideology etc etc has invaded the usually apathetic minds of Australian's. And I don't say apathetic as an insult, it's a comfortable society that doesn't care about important issues enough to be actively involved, that's actually quite nice. Probably not healthy, but nice.
Congratulations Mr President 👏 🤸♀️
Thank you ❤
The ‘not allowed to say anything decenting from regime narrative on social media’ bill
AUSTRALIA - The Great Nanny State™
I read somewhere that USA constitutional free speech does not apply to foreigners (Julian Assange?). But if the platform is hosted in the USA, how would Australian law apply against these companies and individuals?
So, if for instance I use a VPN in the USA and use a USA based platform and then make a podcast about the present Australian government or make comments on some event, that triggers an ACAMA prosecution. What happens then? Particularly when Americans take infringement on their free speech rights as an anathema.
If I understand correctly, this Bill will give ACMA some power to filter information between the Australian people and a source. My concern is, if the government controls this filter, it will inevitably filter out information critical of the government.
The Bill does not let ACMA filter information. It is directed at requiring digital platforms to respond to misinformation by creating procedures for doing to. If they fail, then ACMA can make 'standards' requiring platforms to alter their procedures (i.e. its 'standards' are confined to 'matters relating to the operation of digital communications platforms').
@@constitutionalclarion1901what happens if the digital platform ie X does not comply? What will the government do then?
It could seek to enforce its law, which would result in litigation. I understand there have already been some skirmishes in the courts with X over other legislation.
This raises complex issues concerning international conflicts of law - which is beyond my expertise, I'm afraid.
THE ONLY ANSWER OF COURSE, IS TO TEACH RATIONALISM IN ALL SCHOOLS. RIGHT FROM THE START OF SCHOOLING THROUGH TO THE END OF SCHOOLING. CIVICS, AND ADULT POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY TOO, WHIST I'M AT IT.
Thank you so much
Ive read numerous expert opinions by Prof Twomey, especially in relation to the recent Voice referendum, which have been disagreed with by other expert Australian constitutional lawyers. Why should I trust anything that lawyers opine on? Why should any expert or authority get to decide what anyone else can say?
One might argue that the arguments made by pro-Voice advocates prior to the referendum constitute misinformation because expert dissagree with the consequence of the bill. Since people were using social media to influence the voting population and to sway such population in such a way that the result did not reflect the actual opinion of the electorate that the government, under this bill, should have acted on social media entities to prevent pro-Voice advocates for openly expressing their desires.
As we all know the PM constantly said the Uluru statement was one page. A claim which is false. The complete Ulluru statement is available as a result of an FOI. The PM used social media and legacy media to spread his misinformation. One would argue under this bill the government should have acted to prevent the PM from spreading such misinformation.
But as we also know this bill isnt about the powerful, its about people who threaten power.
If you actually watch the video, you will see that I make the same point - that on contestable issues experts can disagree and that even a consensus of experts can be wrong. Hence, the term misinformation should not extend to matters of opinion, etc.
@ that’s great! So how does the gov craft a law which allows people to state their opinion publicly but not allow people to express their opinion where the relevant facts are false? Is that a function the commonwealth is tasked with by the constitution or is it a function the commonwealth assumes via head of power? Ie one that it isn’t expressly tasked with but believes is implied via other functions of the constitution?
If we look at the PMs voice statements it’s clear that some of his claims were false. Even if his claims were restricted by social media how do we stop the electorate being swayed by misinformation which was made public prior to it being determined misinformation? What about the PMs claims which were broadcast by legacy media? Would this law apply to legacy media?
During covid lockdowns in Victoria the Victorian gov acted against residents of the state which courts have since determined was unlawful. The gov now says “mea culpa” but the harm has already occurred. How would we prevent a situation where the electorate could be swayed by such opinions but for then they be deemed misinformation? Tell the electorate to disregard what was said? Seems to me it’s a law which cannot achieve its intent, it’s pearl clutching.
The Commonwealth's powers to legislate with respect to digital platforms comes from s 51(v) of the Constitution regarding postal, telegraphic, telephonic and other like services.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thanks. I didn’t mean what power they use. I mean what is the specific wording of a law which allows some opinionated speech but not others. Laws should be both useful and enforceable. I would like to see the actual wording. Recently there has been some media comment that this law does not apply to legacy media or to government. Thoughts? Lastly, thankfully if Trump follows through with his statement of making it unlawful for American companies to moderate speech that Australia’s MAD laws will be still born. I would be interested to see how Albo believes he can force American companies to break American law in order to comply with Australian law.
@@darrenyorston As I've said many times in these comments, there is no exclusion for the government. Under the previous exposure draft, there was an exclusion for government authorised material. That's now gone. As for the media, there is no general exception for it, but there is for professional news content (which is defined as being content that is subject to other existing codes, such as that by the Press Council, etc).
Ive reported (AFP) a 'problem'. Its "under assessment". The 'problem' is not in dispute. To date, (all) my digital comms havent been certified as 'safe', which has been requested, and not objected to. My late partners' older sibling in an ADF special section of "Communication Sciences" and (suspect [former?] colleagues) has been notably silent & absent, and without leave! Conduct unbecoming! The tech capabilities are considerable, yet are not employed/deployed to protect civilians. They operate with minimal oversight!
We know lawyers are in a similar category to car sales. We also know politicians are not transparent. Professor Anne Twomey has been a senior researcher for the high court and has held positions in a number of state and federal governments.
she is giving advice to us to read the bill ourselves, she also says her view. how many views are there? or how many ways can the bill be interpreted.
That's precisely the point I was making - that the definitions can be interpreted a number of different ways, which is problematic, and that on contestable issues, there are different views by experts, so it is not a good idea to rely on fact-checkers who may draw on only two or three of them in deciding what is false.
@@constitutionalclarion1901it’s Chinese whispers
@@constitutionalclarion1901yes so the short answer is to not impede freedom of speech in the first place. But those who think they are morally and intellectually superior seem to think they have the right.
This bill is egregious.
Free-speech comes from Public to the Platforms in Good Faith . Who are they to censure my free speech ? Just to comply with Government lack of comprehension? Offence is taken not given! That is the Hall mark of drawing the lines of communication between individuals in societal good faith .What about narration of Religious belief ? Will that be considered offensive to the commissioner
You seem to be confusing this bill with different laws. This bill does not involve any 'commissioner' or any assessment of offence. You are probably thinking of racial hatred laws, which already exist.
This argument that there are adequate protections to prevent its misuse don't hold much water when you consider how similar legislation has been politically weaponised in other countries.
Creating dangerous legislation then putting up protections against its misuse fails fundamental design principles.
I like your videos
....
But the mad bill is horrendous to democracy
peoples main concern and fear is that the government is not subject to the same constraints that individuals and platforms as well as their hosts are . This is also related to the information given so far that the legacy news systems that have been swayed to the owners beliefs are not subject to pushing agenda which also will be seen by those with no interest in these platforms or these laws will automatically assume the agendas pushed by legacy news will be considered as gospel or absolute truth especially as the information hasn't been blocked or tagged as possible mis info . personal note love your stuff love to learn TA
During and after the Voice referendum there were claims the No campaign engaged in MAD. Could those claims have enlivened the penalties in this proposed law?
The digital platforms removed a lot of material during the Voice referendum, even without such a law.
Penalties are only enlivened under the Bill if a digital platform breaches the terms of a Code or standard that applies to it.
This type of law should only apply where there is a contractual agreement between the parties. Say someone is listening to an online blog there is no contractual relationship between them. Talking about "protecting the Australian community" is a vague kind of legislative over-reach.
The tyranny behaviors exhibited during covid should have been sufficient for the people to nip this bill in the bud.
As to Trump, if he keeps his word, he's right to go after not just those responsible in government, yet also those in Big Tech, Big Ag, Big Pharma for acting as agents of the state.
Unfortunately " the people " don't get a vote .
Unfortunately Trump is a known liar
@@peterroach3377 Don't you mean Albanese .
@@peterroach3377fail
The essence of democracy is free speech, not merely in parliament or main stream media outlets, but on the streets, in homes, and online. Without free speech and free access to speech, we no longer have a democracy. That's where this is going.
Where is the requirement for ACMA to have full transparency (not merely a vague report every 6 months), to make politically balanced decisions, or to have staffing that is politically balanced, or to only outsource their decisions to politically balanced entities?
Free speech is the problem.
That would be representation and transparency are the essence of democracy. Free speech without consequence is what you get in the US.
Speech is the opposite of violence. 'Parliament' contains the French word parler which means speech. Clamping down on speech will lead to the opposite of speech. The only way a politician can represent people is if they can speak with the people and hear what the people think, so not only politicians but the people must be able to speak freely in order for any politician to be able to represent them. This bill is an assault on democracy.
@@tazgecko
There are already adequate laws on freedom of expression, with consequences for people who breach them.
@@ricochet2977 And I would say we have a functioning democracy.
Every person have his or her opinion, in some cases their own truth too, right or wrong it must be respected, protected, in my opinion I truly believe that most of our politicians are corrupted, I don’t have to prove it, it’s a opinion, I also believe that political donations are legal bribes, in my humble opinion.
Very interesting as always Prof
Hard to fact check opinions which are ground breaking or to determine the intentions of whistleblowers
Additionally peehaps print and audio media should also be subject to similar standards
Here's a novel idea. How about we just have FREE SPEECH? It's a lot simpler than this proposed legislation, and doesn't require the government to do anything.
If only. Although in order to have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, we would need a constitutional referendum.
That was excellent. Thank you
Glad it was useful.
The Explanatory Memorandum is a SHOCKER!
It's open to potential abuse. It should go.
Brilliant video Professor! Can you please also consider the under-16 social media ban, which will allow the e-safety commissioner to fine social media platforms if they don't comply. The government admitted today that it will be enforced by age verification for all Australians on social media - either through ID checks, digital ID, or biometric data.
I'll wait to see what a bill actually says.
I predict that platforms will unilaterally disable comments from Australian based user accounts to simplify their compliance if this bill gets up and becomes legislation.
Does a vpn avoid that issue?
Provided the platform doesn't require verification of users via ID.
@ricochet2977
They may very well do. As a result Australian society will be less informed than others.
@ we’ve already seen it happen with (for example) ABC disabling comments under news articles linked from their Facebook profiles and on their YT news videos once the earlier Australian “libel/slander” legislation (Online Safety Act 2021) came into effect which transferred liability for content moderation of user comments to the account owner, rather than by the platform.
I hope there is a good base definition of what constitutes a "digital platform".
See sections 5 to 7 of the Bill.
Why would professional news get an exemption?
Because if they where included they would run a scare complain against the government.
Because they dont have the same power to influence
Nobody watches them any more?
Than you for I am grateful for the information video on this bill. . I suspect not even the authors of this bill understand it which is why it is dangerous to pass this in its current form. The concern is this bill is being rushed through to coincide with passing laws for mandatory digital ID in order to be able to access anything at all. This bill is far too vague and open to interpretation and gives future Governments, powers that be and digital platforms far too much power to ban and censure people for political and other reasons. It also gives governments exemptions it does not give the community. We are also living in a climate where political parties, those in power are flooding our private inboxes with unsolicited election material whether we have agreed to this or not and it is sent impersonally bot like online automatically without any contact having been made by a political representative to explain the issues or material. Most sensible people currently send this to the junk folder.
The bill does not give the government exemptions. A previous version did include an exemption for government authorised material. It was criticised (by people like me) and removed before this bill was introduced.