Fester,

The statement itself was indeed only one page. The supporting documents attached to it provide context but that didn't change the fact that the statement itself was a single, concise call for constitutional recognition.

There was nothing that the government was trying to sneak in through the backdoor.

The additional documentation wasn't there to obfuscate. Its purpose was to provide the public with the necessary context and historical background to grasp the significance of the proposed changes. These types of documents are standard for any large reforms Their purpose is to clarify, not confuse.

Your apparent misunderstanding of the bill falsely equates it with giving politicians the power to determine what is true, but, wtih how it's currently written, can only target factually incorrect information - like false claims about elections being rigged, dangerous health advice, or conspiracy theories - designed to deliberately mislead the public.

You’re probably now asking “But who decides what is factually correct?”

Anyone with the time and solid media and information literacy can do it, but the hard work is done on multiple levels by multiple people from multiple independent bodies. Facts, by their nature, can be proven or disproven, and it’s that verification process that distinguishes truth from misinformation.

Some people are just as angry with the Opposition on the Albanese government censorship Bill as they are with the government itself. They don't trust Dutton: “he waits then delivers a response” is one complaint. His “support of Covid vaccines, Digital ID, eSafety Commissioner, and his 16-year-old threshold for SM accounts”, is another.

This gutlessness and people-in-the- wrong-party goes back to John Howard's “broad church” nonsense. The party currently has 9 wets in the Lower House and 6 in the Senate. Recently we've had Liberal Senators disappearing when a votes came up because they apparently agreed with the government on certain matters, but didn’t have the guts to vote that way. The 15 Liberals identified as wets would have been more comfortable within Labor, even the Greens in a couple cases. As I've said previously, David Coleman has been described as a wet blanket wrapped in a lettuce leaf. He didn't even didn't have the nuts to agree with Elon Musk's ‘fascist’ reference to the Albanese government. He used weasel words that were really pathetic, like “there are a lot of problems with this Bill”; and, “the government is contemptuous of free speech”. Wow! Makes me think of the Zulu impi rattling their assegais against their shields at Rourke's Drift.

Law professor James Allan believes that this latest Bill is even worse for free speech than the “truly awful earlier version”. In the guise of ‘keeping us safe”, it will have a “truly chilling effect on free speech”. He has never seen anything like it in an advanced Anglosphere country!

The Bill basically forces social media platforms to act as government censors or close down in Australia. Think Communist China and Brazil where they ban social media they don't like.

The definition of ‘serious harm’ is now so wide it envelopes ‘harms’ to the Commonwealth, plausibly covers opinions the boffins just don’t agree with, and certainly includes opinions about public health and the economy.

The Bill would cover “all of the disagreements about government policy that swirled around during the pandemic …. all the claims about the government's thuggish rules …. all the sceptical claims (about vaccines) that were later proved correct”. Governments were the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation.

The Bill will be a tool for the government to use against opinions different from their own.

And, Allan reminds us, the legacy media, academics and the government will be exempt.

As for the Liberals, they have caved in on free speech ever since Abbott chickened out on sec. 18c.

The Liberals need to oppose the Bill, and they need to pledge to repeal it if it gets through and they ever form a government again.

ttbn,

You've taking James Allan's concerns way further than what I think he would have intended with your absurd doomsday scenario, which would be virtually impossible under our legal and constitutional framework.

Allan raises concerns about potential overreach, but his focus is more on the risk of government powers expanding later on down the track. The bill itself doesn’t give the government the level of power you're worried about.

Your comparison to China and Brazil seems exaggerated. Australia’s democratic framework is built with checks and balances to prevent the kind of extreme censorship you're describing.

As I've mentioned here once before, the bill includes provisions for transparency and accountability, allowing any misuse of the law to be challenged. While it's healthy to be cautious about potential overreach, Allan's concerns are about risks, not certainties.

Has it ever occurred to you that the Liberals don't oppose reasonable proposals because they understand the law better than you do, and because they know there are no nefarious cabals lurking behind the curtains?

Dear John,

«but the real world really isn’t as exciting as you might think.»

I am indeed capable of thinking almost anything, and different thoughts at different times.

«Thanks for the bag story. I got a lump in my throat reading it.»

Please don't choke - I just found such bags online and ordered 100 of them (that was the smallest quantity available). If strong as the ones I always used, then they should suffice to carry my music for the rest of my life. It's just a pity that they will all be of the same colour (purple) since having different colours helps me distinguish the music, but this I can live with.

They should arrive next week, they tell me.
I suppose you will now go and inform the police on my crime...

«However it seems you may not be familiar with the concept of the social contract...»

I'm quite familiar with that forgery attempt.

Any true contract is signed with the full consent of all parties, without coercion or duress.

«However, it’s not being done “in your name,” so your authorisation is not required.»

Whom then is this bill (and all others) presumed to benefit? The kangaroos perhaps?

«As for your cosmos vs chao and god talk, you’ll need to provide evidence of that. Hitchen's razor.»

That will not be necessary for now because I was not attempting to prove anything.
For the purpose of this discussion, it suffices that (but please correct me if I am wrong) you confirm your belief that the world we live in is chaotic.

Having faith that we live in a cosmos leads to certain lifestyle choices and preferences.
Believing that we live in a chaotic world leads to quite different choices and preferences.

How can a "social contract" possibly be implied or even conceived of between those who believe in cosmos and those who believe in chaos?
(that before even speaking of so many other significant divisions that lead people to different choices/preferences).

What we see instead, around the globe, is one belief/faith coercing the others into some fake "social-contract".

Yuyutsu,

We’re all “capable of thinking almost anything, and different thoughts at different times.” So, telling me that you are like everyone else in that regard is rather pointless. It also misses my point entirely.

//I suppose you will now go and inform the police on my crime...//

What you’ve described is not a crime.

//I'm quite familiar with that forgery attempt//

I take it, then that it is the “implied” part that you do not understand. The concept of the social contract is not an attempt at forgery. It is a rationally justifiable implied agreement.

//Any true contract is signed with the full consent of all parties, without coercion or duress.//

This is a false dichotomy.

//Whom then is this bill (and all others) presumed to benefit?//

Whoa, let’s back up here a second. Before, you were talking about a law being drafted, debated, and passed in your name before, now you just want to know who it will benefit?

These are two different concepts, but the answer to your question is ‘everyone.’

//That will not be necessary for now because I was not attempting to prove anything.//

Well, it’s become necessary now because it is foundational to your rejection of the concept of the social contract.

//How can a "social contract" possibly be implied or even conceived of between those who believe in cosmos and those who believe in chaos?//

Easily - by those believing in a cosmos demonstrating, through their actions, that they are happy to benefit from the systems and structures put in place by society when it suits them.

There is nothing “fake” about it. It can be rationally justified quite easily.