By now, I am sure that you will have heard of the proposal being pushed by the federal government to censor all manner of “misinformation” and “disinformation” on social media platforms and the like. The proposed, “Communications Legislation Amendment Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill”, is a new piece of legislation that purports to protect us citizens from fake news, lies and all manner of propaganda that misleads and deceives us. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), will be given the responsibility to regulate online platforms against the spread of what they deem to be “false information”.
This all sounds so incredibly noble, of course, but the fly in the ointment is who decides what truth should be? Or what exactly is disinformation, or misinformation? Therein lies the problem!
The problem with who decides what truth is – that is, who are the arbiters of truth – is deciding what truth standard to use. In our current postmodern cultural climate truth is up for grabs; it is whatever we want it to be. The vernacular of our day includes such statements as “Well, this is my truth” and, in many instances, that can be poles apart from someone else’s truth. Who is right? There is no truth standard, only prevailing opinion that wants to be truth. But it is all subjective.
Peta Credlin writing in last Thursday’s edition of The Australian (July 6th) said,
“Under the Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will be empowered to penalise online platforms that allow the propagation of what ACMA considers “misinformation” (which is false) or “disinformation” (which is deliberately false), if it has the potential to create “serious harm”.
But harm is essentially whatever some faceless bureaucrat thinks might be damaging at any given time. A good example is that back in June 2021, when ACMA first recommended this bill, what it then regarded as harmful was any dissent from governments’ pandemic policies, especially on lockdowns and vaccinations.”
This proposed legislation, in my humble opinion, is simply another device that woke leftists want to add to their growing collection of tools to use to control public debate and discourse. Again, I ask, what objective standard will be used to determine what is disinformation and misinformation? There is none being specified. The reach of this bill will include: “harm based on a social media post, to the environment, to the economy, disruption to public order or society or anything akin to ‘hatred against a group … on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability’”. That’s a pretty big remit. But will the ACMA censor future political ad campaigns on social media platforms that are so often littered with disinformation and propaganda? I don’t think that will happen – governments will be exempt. Talk about hubris! Religious groups will not. Apparently, the press and media will be exempt, too. Why? They are hardly paragons of virtuous truth-telling when it comes to the daily news! So much is tailored to suit all kinds of woke agendas.
But I do think, if this legislation does get up, that it will be used to curtail freedom of speech in our nation, including critique of government; and it will be used to curtail freedom of religious expression, speech and counter-culture points of view.
Only a few months ago one church’s views, in particular, that opposed the gender fluidity influences constantly coming at us was shouted down by our own Victorian premier as not being in step with mainstream community values. There are plenty of other examples, of course.
I am deeply concerned that the proposed legislation will be weaponised by postmodern wokeists , educationists and social engineers who will scream loudly against Christian views on a whole range of issues. Church websites, social media pages and so on are clearly being targeted here. Why do I think this? I simply observe the current behaviour of politicians, as we speak – without this legislation- who are arguing over the indigenous Voice to parliament which the nation will vote on in a referendum later this year. My point is, that whatever point of view one may hold concerning the Voice to parliament – for or against – that is a fundamental democratic right we all hold dear. Each is entitled to their opinion and their expression of it. It grieves me no end to see one side of the fence yelling at the other side and calling their concerns and opinions “disinformation” as Senator Linda Burney did twice last week at her Australian Press Club address. Is it really “disinformation” to question a proposal, or to critique it because we might think it lacks sufficient detail? I don’t think so. Is holding an opposite point of view and expressing that in our nation civilly and respectfully, and holding a differing point of view respectfully to account, “disinformation”? I think not. But that’s where we are. Holding a different point of view and explaining why is called out as disinformation. Of course, it isn’t.
But that kind of accusation is already being made in the course of democratic, public debate as a way of discrediting dissenting views and seeking to cancel them altogether. Now, imagine that kind of shrill spirit being embodied in a piece of legislation that then becomes a blunt instrument with which to intimidate freedom of religious expression, and freedom of speech. Imagine that!
I fear that’s exactly where we are headed unless we speak up – while we can. Check out the Australian Christian Lobby website and consider writing a letter to your federal MP. I have.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV)
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Think on these things, and pray … and act. The people of God owe it to the rest of the country to speak up and be brave enough to point out that the “emperor has no clothes”.
Ps Milton
[Sources: The ACL, The Australian – July 6th, 2023, other personal research.]