"A system where government information is defined as true by legislative fiat would seem to lend itself to the abuse of power by ideologically motivated commissioners."

Seem”?

Surely an understatement.

Let's take a simplified case, Federal elections, modelled as government parties vs opposition parties. The normal flow of argument in politics would have voters applying their minds to deciding between two sets of propositions. Let’s apply reductio ad absurdum. If government information cannot be misinformation or disinformation then surely a regulator could or should declare that the contradictory opposition case must be.

No democracy can accept such a constraint

This Bill is one of the most awful things about the awful Albanese government. Albanese himself has been seeing too much of the Communist dictator, Xi. Albanese keeps their conversations and meetings secret from the Australian people. They are private “conversations”, he says. And he wants to stop anyone from saying things about him, just like Xi does.

Democracy makes it hard for politicians to do what they want. We need to exercise that democracy.

The online “safety” is to do with keeping Albanese, certainly, and no doubt other politicians, safe from criticism. Remember, Morrison intended to pull this same stunt. Politicians are not our friends.

The High Court found in the matter of cancelling visas, citizenship and locking up illegal intruders, that it wasn't the job of governments to punish, but the Court’s . Perhaps it could also find that it is not the government's, nor ACMA’s job to punish people for saying things that governments don't like?

Australian should make an effort to get off their backsides and resist this obvious attempt to shut them up for good. This Bill is a very bad and dangerous idea of very bad and dangerous people.

Just halfway through his term, Albanese has been stupid enough to reveal the real wannabe dictator he is. Let's take advantage of that stupidity and resist.

I disagree, there is so much misinformation and blatant mistruths delivered as opine, that something needed to be done to de-weaponize opinion pieces delivered as fact.

Murdoch media a master of this "craft" and aimed at one side of politics or the other, depending on how much media control and outlets they gave or conceded him.

I think that opinion pieces delivered as fact would no longer be possible if validation and objective fact checking was mandatory. If the legislation does not achieve that, then it must be amended until it does.

King making media Moguls ought not be able to decide election outcomes!
Alan B.

Alan B, it is axiomatic, that the biggest source of misinformation will always be the government, not bad old Murdoch or 24/7 social media.

The level of lying coming from Albanese, Bowen, Chalmers, and O'Neil, on population, immigration, climate, the economy, emissions, and energy, beggars belief. As things stand, our compliant media barely lays a glove on them. And none of the other "stakeholders" cares much.

This totalitarian Misinformation Bill weakens an already moribund "democracy". And remember, once it is passed, the next Coalition Government would use it against us with equal enthusiasm.

Steve S, please give two examples and on which dates. Otherwise, methinks you are just another of those who make up their own facts. And there would seem to be plenty of birds of a feather opining here.
Alan B.

On Line Opinion works on the basis of putting ideas into an online forum where they can be debated. Truth is not one of the criteria we use. Truth is something we depend on our readers to work out for themselves.

We have two types of contributors - those who have an institutional place in the public debate because of who they represent, or that they are an established writer or public intellectual, and those who don't.

For the first category we don't check facts, except in rare cases where there is a legal risk. In the second category we may check facts, but it will depend, and we certainly don't demand writers conform to our view of the world.

The first type of contributor brings credibility to the publication while the second takes their credibility from it. That's why we have the two different ways of looking at them.

Nevertheless I'm sure that over the years we've published a lot of mis-and disinformation. But which articles, or parts of articles, qualify as either I'm not exactly sure.

The Misinformation and Disinformation Act would potentially force us to take sides with the government, and would destroy the whole philosophy of the site which is that truth can be found through the clash of ideas, not by suppressing them.

In effect it would force us to close-up shop.