"We think it's important that the government receive many responses and we encourage you to do so".

But, with the totalitarian leanings of the Albanese government, will the people who do respond be safe? Will their bank accounts be closed, as is happening overseas? Will they get a pre-dawn knock on the door? There is enough technology and surveillance already for them to come after you. No government is our friend; but the Albanese government is looking more like an outright enemy every day.

Does anyone really believe that a government that openly pushes for censorship without any qualms at all is not very dangerous?

I'm afraid that Australians have left it too late to start protesting. Totalitarianism has already crept up on us, as it always does on complacent populations. The only possible protests available to us now against our rotten duopoly, are the old, South American banana republic sort. And I don't see that happening in a country that allowed the thugs to get away with the Covid crackdowns. We seem to be cowards in every way.

WTF?

One of the examples of serious harm presented in the fact sheet is

"Misinformation that caused people to ingest or inject bleach products to treat a viral infection."

I wonder which group of people need this level of government protection.

Here is another:

"Misinformation undermining the impartiality of an Australian electoral management body ahead of an election or a referendum."

The fact that Fox News had to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial in the voting machine company’s lawsuit would indicate that there may be sound reasons behind parts of this proposal.

I see nothing wrong with this requirement and overdue. Too much fake news and misinformation allowed on these platforms without the usual validation by the publisher. Time this was changed.

Know the truth and the truth will set you free!
Alan B.

Free Speech is critical to democracy and science. In science it's called peer review. Publishers can be held as responsible for their content with readers without reverting to legalism. Sounds like there might be another motivation to the proposal by the Labor party- suggests that the public and the Labor party are in different places.

.

Thanks for the info, Ken. I have made a submission as follows :

« I respectfully suggest that the definition of the words “harm” and “hatred” in Schedule 1-Main amendments of the Exposure Draft of the Communication Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 specifically exclude “duly substantiated criticism” which, under no circumstances, should be deemed to constitute “harm” or “hatred” »

Allow me to invite anybody of a similar mindset – including yourself (if that happens to be the case) – to copy the text and send it as an additional submission.

.

.

By the way, Ken, you mention the word “truth” as “ … a view or perspective that is universally held …”.

As I understand it, truth is a purely subjective notion, that there are as many truths as there are individuals (informants or witnesses) whose truths may concord, but not necessarily, and may perhaps even be quite contradictory.

What you refer to as “truth” is what I refer to as “the object of truth” (facts, reality). I see truth as the honest account of facts and reality as perceived by an informant or witness.

As such, truth is not synonymous with fact or reality. Fact and reality exist independently of ideas concerning them. Not so for truth. Truth is simply honest narrative – even though it may be way off target and not correspond to fact or reality at all.

I thought I should share these ideas with you, but please forgive me if I have misinterpreted your understanding of what is meant by the term truth.

.