ttbn,

Interesting comparision with Ireland there. I wonder if the Irish actually bothered to read the legislation before lashing back?

You seem to have elevated Musk to some kind of modern-day freedom fighter, but let’s be real: spending $44 billion on Twitter wasn’t exactly a philanthropic endeavour. If anything, it’s been a masterclass in questionable management and brand damage.

As for Musk’s "fascist" comment, I’d suggest digging into the definition of the term before tossing it around. Criticising governments is fine - calling them fascist for passing bills you dislike (despite not having read it) is another.

And, while you’re at it, you might want to look closer at how "docile" these Australian "dairy cows" really are. The amount of engagement around the Voice referendum shows quite the opposite. Just because people don’t rise up with pitchforks every time someone yells “free speech” doesn’t mean they’re asleep.

As for the loss of faith in the two major parties, I won’t argue with you there. But instead of a vague rant about criminals and zealots, maybe the discussion should focus on facts - like what's actually in the bill you're so worried about.

As with the Voice, the language of the MAD Bill is vague.

Chris Merritt, VP of the Rule of Law institute, says that MAD'S vague language would allow ACMA to become an arbiter of the truth based on “broad and subjective criteria”.

Also, the Communications Minister would have “untethered power” to expand MAD'S reach and exempt certain businesses, “bypassing parliamentary oversight”

John,

"I haven’t suggested that you’re being dishonest by believing the Uluru Statement to be longer than one page. I said that quote-mining Davis’s words is dishonest."

You are accusing me of quoting people out of context. Such an act is dishonest, so yes you are accusing me of dishonesty. The examples I gave contained unequivocal statements that the Uluru Statement was longer than a single page. I engaged in no dishonesty or distortion to convey the meaning of the quoted material other than intended by the authors. Perhaps the subsequent "clarifications" by the authors is the issue deserving scrutiny rather than my honesty in quoting their earlier statements?

The Misinformation Bill will allow specific opinions on a range of subjects, such as the length of the Uluru Statement or whether the Voice referendum violated the democratic principle of equality, to be arbitrarily redefined by a government agency as misinformation or disinformation. People holding such opinions could be prevented from expressing these views on electronic media and face severe penalties should they try to do so. That is an obscenity.

My description of you as a Freisler like miscreant is no more than a reflection of my horror on realising the depth of your deceit and your paucity of regard for the importance of free political expression in a democracy.

ttbn,

Merritt's concerns about "vague language" and ACMA’s role as an arbiter of truth are opinions - worthy of consideration, sure, but opinions nonetheless.

Like most legislation, the bill will be subject to interpretation and oversight. Claiming it gives the Communications Minister "untethered power" is another example of fear-based rhetoric without concrete examples.

If you’re worried about parliamentary oversight being bypassed, how about pointing to specific provisions that actually grant such unchecked power? Otherwise, it’s just more of the same vague alarmism.

--

Fester,

Yes, I’m accusing you of dishonesty, but not for what you believe, as you had said before - it was for your quote-mining.

It’s telling that instead of addressing the core of my argument, you’re continuing to push the Freisler comparison and muddying the waters with yet more alarmism about the bill. But let’s break this down.

First, yes, I did call out your quote-mining because you’ve been selectively quoting Megan Davis without acknowledging the clarifications she (and others) have made repeatedly. Whether you like it or not, relying on those quotes alone is a form of dishonesty, because it misrepresents the full picture. I’m not accusing you of lying outright - I’m saying you’re being intellectually dishonest by refusing to engage with the context.

As for the bill, your description of it seems more dystopian than anything based in reality. Opinions about the length of the Uluru Statement or the democratic principles of the referendum aren't going to be policed by the government. The bill targets deliberate disinformation - organised campaigns designed to mislead the public. There’s a big difference between that and someone having a subjective view.

For the record, comparing someone to Freisler because they call out distortions in an argument isn't just hyperbolic, it's a gross misrepresentation of what’s happening. You might want to reflect on why you feel the need to escalate things that far when we’re simply discussing facts.

"You seem to have elevated Musk to some kind of modern-day freedom fighter, but let’s be real: spending $44 billion on Twitter wasn’t exactly a philanthropic endeavour. If anything, it’s been a masterclass in questionable management and brand damage."

Musk hasn't damaged his brand, the majority of people who use it love it more than ever before, the people that hate it are the woke and the governments who preferred the previous ownership that did their bidding. The governments and the corporate media backed by the woke sell you a narrative that he's damaged his brand, because they themselves are active in trying to damage his brand (preventing advertising revenue etc) and force him to do as they say.

I agree with ttbn, Musk, not politicians has been the only real protector of freedom of speech.
The politicians all want censorship, at best they merely disagree over how much.

Overall I'd say X is much better now than it was as Twitter prior to Musk.

The Albanese government - and the Opposition to a lesser extent - claim that criticism and speaking against their narrative (free speech) is a threat to democracy.

No. They are the threat to democracy, wishing to stifle free speech: dictate what we say, hear and watch. They want to treat us like subjects; take us back to the Dark Ages of serfdom.

It is the politicians who are masters of misinformation and disinformation. They want to keep it that way.

The UNHRC considers that any form of “monitoring and analysis of public online discourse is a form of surveillance ….”, interfering with the right to freedom of speech and opinion.

But the Albanese government, just like the Chinese Communist Party, wants to ignore that.

We know how the CCP ignores any international conventions it doesn't like. It seems that some Australians are too dumb to recognise the same trait in the Albanese government.

John Daysh:

I use Onine Opinion to express my own opinions. I am not going to argue with you. I have no interest whatsoever in what you think about anything. You are the same sort of nitpicker, scold and disagreeable poster as Foxy. Nothing I post has anything to do with you; but if you want to keep making an utter arsehole of yourself, there are a couple of posters who seem willing to keep you going.