The Misinformation Bill Is Dead [Again]!

The Albanese government has dumped its controversial mis- and disinformation bill, conceding there is “no pathway” to getting the proposal passed through the Senate.

The communications minister, Michelle Rowland, insisted misinformation and disinformation remained a grave concern for democracy, national security and online safety, but said the government would not proceed with the proposal. It is the second time Labor has pulled the bill, after an initial version also failed to gain support and raised concerns about freedom of speech online.

“Based on public statements and engagements with senators, it is clear that there is no pathway to legislate this proposal through the Senate,” Rowland said on Sunday.

As I discussed in previous shows, the mis- and disinformation bill would have put legal obligations on social media platforms to address false, misleading or deceptive content, or content reasonably likely to cause serious harm, as well as equip the Australian Communications and Media Authority to regulate such content. However it was strongly opposed by a wide range of bodies including human rights organisations, church groups and libertarian groups, as well as many of the non-government members of parliament.
A first version of the legislation was redrafted in a bid to win wider support, but the second attempt also failed to garner parliamentary backing or assuage wider concerns from critics. The Coalition has long pledged to oppose the bill, while all other members of the Senate crossbench had said in recent days they would either vote it down or were not yet sufficiently convinced to vote for it.

The Australian Human Rights Commission said back in October that “although there have been improvements to the bill, freedom of expression is not sufficiently protected”.

That leaves the age of under 16 ban on access to social media still in play, and it looks like this legislation will pass this week despite major flaws in the bill, and concerns it could be a back door to wider social media access controls. As I discussed recently this bill is also deeply flawed, but Labour is after a win, any win politically speaking before the election.

The short time-frame and rushed consideration of the Bill means it is likely to be of poor quality. Given the importance of the issues contained in the legislation, a more detailed and longer path is required to ensure the best approach possible is developed.

Given the proximity of the next election is appears that political considerations are driving the time-frames, and for the reasons outlined above, the Bill in its current guise should not be passed into law.

http://www.martinnorth.com/

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
The Misinformation Bill Is Dead [Again]!
Loading
/

There Is NO BASIS For This “MAD” Legislation!

This is an edited version of a post John Adams and I made on In The Interests Of The People, doing a deep dive into the arguments around the proposed Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 which on the 19 September 2024, the Senate referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 25 November 2024.

You have JUST ONE Day! as submissions close on the 30 September 2024.

This bill would severely curtain unfettered free speech by putting onerous responsibilities on social media platforms across issues as wide as electoral, health, social and economic. In practice the Government will define “truth” and will essential silence alternative voices.

You have a limited opportunity to make your views know before 1984 type conditions arrive!

IOTP Edition here: https://youtu.be/R-m0ZITOVhQ

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MisandDisinfobill

Contact details:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3526
ec.sen@aph.gov.au

https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/say-no-albaneses-orwellian-disapproved-information-censorship-bill

About this inquiry: The bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and would make consequential amendments to other Acts to establish a new framework to safeguard against serious harms caused by misinformation or disinformation.

The bill would provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with new regulatory powers to require digital communications platform providers to take steps to manage the risk that misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms poses in Australia. These would include obligations on providers to assess and report on risks relating to misinformation and disinformation, to publish their policy in relation to managing misinformation and disinformation, and develop and publish a media literacy plan.

The bill would also provide ACMA with new information gathering, record keeping, code registration and standard making powers to oversee digital communications platform providers.

http://www.martinnorth.com/

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
There Is NO BASIS For This “MAD” Legislation!
Loading
/

There Is NO BASIS For This “MAD” Legislation!

This is an edited version of a post John Adams and I made on In The Interests Of The People, doing a deep dive into the arguments around the proposed Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 which on the 19 September 2024, the Senate referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 25 November 2024.

You have JUST ONE Day! as submissions close on the 30 September 2024.

This bill would severely curtain unfettered free speech by putting onerous responsibilities on social media platforms across issues as wide as electoral, health, social and economic. In practice the Government will define “truth” and will essential silence alternative voices.

You have a limited opportunity to make your views know before 1984 type conditions arrive!

IOTP Edition here: https://youtu.be/R-m0ZITOVhQ

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MisandDisinfobill

Contact details:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3526
ec.sen@aph.gov.au

https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/say-no-albaneses-orwellian-disapproved-information-censorship-bill

About this inquiry: The bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and would make consequential amendments to other Acts to establish a new framework to safeguard against serious harms caused by misinformation or disinformation.

The bill would provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with new regulatory powers to require digital communications platform providers to take steps to manage the risk that misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms poses in Australia. These would include obligations on providers to assess and report on risks relating to misinformation and disinformation, to publish their policy in relation to managing misinformation and disinformation, and develop and publish a media literacy plan.

The bill would also provide ACMA with new information gathering, record keeping, code registration and standard making powers to oversee digital communications platform providers.

http://www.martinnorth.com/

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Save Free Speech: Fight The Disinformation Bill!

This is an edited version of a recent live show I did on Adam Stokes channel relating to the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 which on the 19 September 2024, the Senate referred the provisions of the bill to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 25 November 2024.

You have JUST SEVEN Days! as submissions close on the 30 September 2024.

This bill would severely curtain unfettered free speech by putting onerous responsibilities on social media platforms across issues as wide as electoral, health, social and economic. In practice the Government will define “truth” and will essential silence alternative voices.

You have a limited opportunity to make your views know before 1984 type conditions arrive!

Adams Live stream: https://youtu.be/jhiRS7_TE9Y

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MisandDisinfobill

Contact details:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3526
ec.sen@aph.gov.au

https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/say-no-albaneses-orwellian-disapproved-information-censorship-bill

About this inquiry: The bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and would make consequential amendments to other Acts to establish a new framework to safeguard against serious harms caused by misinformation or disinformation.

The bill would provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with new regulatory powers to require digital communications platform providers to take steps to manage the risk that misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms poses in Australia. These would include obligations on providers to assess and report on risks relating to misinformation and disinformation, to publish their policy in relation to managing misinformation and disinformation, and develop and publish a media literacy plan.

The bill would also provide ACMA with new information gathering, record keeping, code registration and standard making powers to oversee digital communications platform providers.

http://www.martinnorth.com/

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Save Free Speech: Fight The Disinformation Bill!
Loading
/

Seven Days To Stop 1984!

In this special show I am joined by Robbie Barwick from the Australian Citizens Party, and Economist John Adams, from In The Interests Of The People to underscore the need for people to make their views known to Government on the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 which on the 19 September 2024, the Senate referred the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 (the bill) to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 25 November 2024.

You have JUST SEVEN Days! as submissions close on the 30 September 2024.

This bill would severely curtain unfettered free speech by putting onerous responsibilities on social media platforms across issues as wide as electoral, health, social and economic. In practice the Government will define “truth” and will essential silence alternative voices.

You have a limited opportunity to make your views know before 1984 type conditions arrive!

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MisandDisinfobill

Contact details:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3526
ec.sen@aph.gov.au

https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/say-no-albaneses-orwellian-disapproved-information-censorship-bill

About this inquiry: The bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and would make consequential amendments to other Acts to establish a new framework to safeguard against serious harms caused by misinformation or disinformation.

The bill would provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with new regulatory powers to require digital communications platform providers to take steps to manage the risk that misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms poses in Australia. These would include obligations on providers to assess and report on risks relating to misinformation and disinformation, to publish their policy in relation to managing misinformation and disinformation, and develop and publish a media literacy plan.

The bill would also provide ACMA with new information gathering, record keeping, code registration and standard making powers to oversee digital communications platform providers.

http://www.martinnorth.com/

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Seven Days To Stop 1984!
Loading
/

You What? The Use Of Cash Is Up!!

An average of more than 50 UK bank branches have closed each month since 2015 and campaigners fear some retailers could stop accepting cash if it becomes too burdensome to process. That said, under government rules, free withdrawals and deposits will need to be available within one mile for people living in urban areas. In rural areas, where there are concerns over “cash deserts”, where the maximum distance is three miles.

This is important because cash remains a necessity for millions of people, research has found, with the elderly and those with disabilities among those likely to struggle. Branches have been more likely to close in disadvantaged areas.

Of course, Banks have pointed to the large reduction in branch use – a trend accelerated by the Covid pandemic – and the popularity of managing money via smartphones, as good reason for diluting their branch network.

But a recent survey by Age UK suggested that, among those who were uncomfortable about digital banking, the key concerns were fraud and scams, a lack of trust in online banking services, and a lack of computer skills.

And now, The British Retail Consortium says cash use has grown for the first time in 10 years as shoppers keep a close eye on their budgets while prices rise, retailers have said. They said 19% of purchases were made with notes and coins last year, echoing a report by banks showing a slight rebound. That’s up from 15% the previous year. Until 2015, notes and coins were used in more than half of transactions and, while card use now dominated, cash still had its benefits. Consumers made smaller but more frequent payments, the survey found.

The consortium said consumers were budgeting carefully to try to cope with cost of living pressures, and there was also a “natural return” for cash after it slumped during the pandemic.

It is essential use of cash is protected, you cannot leave it to the market, where banks are making a killing from extra fees on card transaction costs as a result of removing access to cash.

http://www.martinnorth.com/

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
You What? The Use Of Cash Is Up!!
Loading
/

ACCC Versus The Future – With Salvatore Babones

The ACCC’s stance on media platforms like Google versus local media companies has unintended consequences. Salvatore Babones from the University of Sydney and I discuss.

https://salvatorebabones.com/

Salvatore Babones is Australia’s globalization expert. He is an associate professor at the University of Sydney, an adjunct scholar at the Centre for Independent Studies, a columnist for Foreign Policy and Quadrant, and a regular contributor to The National Interest. A proud American by birth and by habit, he has lived in Sydney since 2008.

ACCC Versus The Future [Podcast]

Salvadore Babones from the University of Sydney and I discuss proposed changes to the commercial relationships between the large media platforms like Google and Facebook, and local media content publishers from the ACCC review.

There are unintended consequences.

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
ACCC Versus The Future [Podcast]
Loading
/

From Hardware To Software To Netware – The Basis Of American Power In The C21 [Podcast]

Associate Professor Salvatore Babones and I discuss the rise of the network giants and consider how they are shaping American power in the current century.

http://salvatorebabones.com/

https://www.sydney.edu.au/arts/about/our-people/academic-staff/salvatore-babones.html

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
From Hardware To Software To Netware - The Basis Of American Power In The C21 [Podcast]
Loading
/

Social media and defamation law pose threats to free speech, and it’s time for reform

From The Conversation.

Recent discussion about freedom of speech in Australia has focused almost exclusively on Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. For some politicians and commentators, 18C is the greatest challenge to freedom of speech in Australia and the reform or repeal of this section will reinstate freedom of speech.

social-media-pic

There are many challenges to freedom of speech in Australia beyond 18C, for example defamation law. Defamation law applies to all speech, whereas 18C applies only to speech relating to race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

The pervasive application of defamation law to all communication creates real risks of liability for publishers. Large media companies are used to managing those risks. But defamation law applies to all publishers, large and small. Now, through social media, private individuals can become publishers on a large scale.

A significant reason that defamation law poses a risk to free speech is that it is relatively easy to sue for defamation and relatively difficult to defend such a claim. All a plaintiff will need to demonstrate is that the defendant published material that identified the plaintiff, directly or indirectly, and that it was disparaging of their reputation.

In many cases, proving publication and identification is straightforward, so the only real issue is whether what has been published is disparaging of the person’s reputation. Once this has been established, the law presumes the plaintiff’s reputation has been damaged and that what has been published is false.

It is then for the publisher to establish a defence. The publisher may prove that what has been published is substantially accurate, or may claim that it is fair comment or honest opinion (but the comment or opinion must be based on accurately stated facts), or may be privileged. Truth, comment and privilege are the major defences to defamation.

One of the main criticisms of 18C is that it inhibits people from speaking freely about issues touching on race. In essence, this criticism is that 18C “chills” speech.

The ability of the law to inhibit or “chill” speech is not unique to 18C. The “chilling effect” of defamation law is well-known. Precisely because it is easier to sue, than to be sued, for defamation, the “chilling effect” of defamation law is significant.

Defamation claims based on social media publications by private individuals are increasingly being litigated in Australia. In 2013, a man was ordered to pay A$105,000 damages to a music teacher at his former school over a series of defamatory tweets and Facebook posts. In 2014, four men were ordered to pay combined damages of $340,000 to a fellow poker player, arising out of allegations of theft made in Facebook posts. In the former case, judge Elkaim emphasised that:

… when defamatory publications are made on social media it is common knowledge that they spread. They are spread easily by the simple manipulation of mobile phones and computers. Their evil lies in the grapevine effect that stems from the use of this type of communication.

More defamation cases arising out of social media can be anticipated. Indeed, the cases that make it to court represent only a fraction of the concerns about defamatory publications on social media. Many cases settle before they reach court and still more are resolved by correspondence before any claim is even commenced in court.

There are several ways in which defamation law might be reformed in Australia that could promote freedom of speech, particularly for everyday communication.

Currently, plaintiffs suing for defamation in Australia do not have to demonstrate that they suffered a minimum level of harm at the outset of their claims. Publication to one other person is sufficient for a claim in defamation, and damage to reputation is presumed. Defamation law is arguably engaged at too low a level in Australia.

English courts have developed two doctrines to deal with low-level defamation claims. It is worth considering whether these should be adopted in Australia.

The first is the principle of proportionality. This allows a defamation claim to be stayed where the cost of the matter making its way through the court would be grossly disproportionate to clearing the plaintiff’s reputation. A court would view such a claim as an abuse of process.

There has been some judicial support for this principle in Australia, most notably Justice McCallum in Bleyer v Google Inc, but there has also been judicial criticism and resistance.

The other English development is the requirement that a plaintiff prove a level of serious or substantial harm to reputation before being allowed to litigate.

Australian law does have a defence of triviality, but it is difficult to establish because of the terms of the legislation. It also only applies after the plaintiff has established the defendant’s liability. By contrast, the threshold requirement of serious or substantial harm can stop trivial defamation claims before they start.

Another way in which the balance between the protection of reputation and freedom of speech online could be effectively recalibrated is by developing alternative remedies for defamation.

Notwithstanding previous attempts at defamation law reform, it remains the case that an award of damages is still the principal remedy for defamation. Yet people who have had their reputations damaged would probably prefer a swift correction or retraction, or to have the material taken down, or have a right of reply, than commencing a claim for damages.

Currently, people can negotiate these remedies by threatening to sue, or suing, and hoping they can secure these remedies as part of a settlement. Australian law has no effective small claims dispute resolution system for defamation in the way that it does for other small claims, such as debts. More effective and more accessible remedies are another aspect of defamation law reform worth exploring.

The discussion about freedom of speech in Australia recently has been unduly narrow. Every Australian has an interest in freedom of speech, not only about issues of race. Every Australian also has an interest in the protection of their reputation.

It is time to widen the focus of the treatment of free speech under Australian law. Defamation law is an obvious area in need of reform on this front.

Author: David Rolph, Associate Professor of Media Law, University of Sydney