Hi Fester,

Even though you're not a progressive like JD, you wont agree on many issues, you both post reasonably sensible opinions, although JD's post to you are robust, they are not offensive, so to call him a Labor goon was not called for.

As for Australian politics, the governments we have, regardless of their political persuasion are moderate governments, Albanese like Morrison before him is a moderate, as I would expect a Dutton led government would be. Australian governments never embark on missions of zealous radical change, rather confining themselves to marginal change through a well established political and social system. The argument always boils down more on emphases than substance.

Hyperthetically,
If I said the government are NAZIs for pushing this MAD bill...
- Would that be misinfo, disinfo, a hate crime, antisemitic, or several of the above?
And what should be my punishment?

$550k for the disinfo, reduced because it's a first offense, and a similar penalty for using the word NAZI, with the judge going leniently on me with a 'stern talking to' for the 'hateful rhetoric' - but only if I do a holocaust education course and publicly apologise for offense caused to any Jewish people?

It's not just MAD, it's getting stupid too.

Armchair Critic,

Doing that wouldn't even come close to being captured by the bill for reasons I've mentioned multiple times now.

1. Calling the government "NAZIs" is an opinion, not misinformation intended to deceive the public with false facts.

2. It's an individual statement, not a large-scale, coordinated efforts intended to impact public discourse.

3. Political opinions in Australia (even extreme ones) are generally protected.

4. The bill doesn't contain provisions to criticism of the government, no matter how offensive.

5. While insensitive, you hypothetical comment doesn’t meet the threshold for hate speech unless it incites harm.

Your hypothetical situation may make for good theatre, but it’s not reflective of how the bill actually works. The only thing "MAD" is the the level of hyperbole over a bill no one has even bothered to read.

That link yet again:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7239

And let that be a lesson to anyone considering posting a comment using a phone.

Around the world, the most common political movement is the threat to freedom of speech. Governments, private companies and NGOs are all at it.

Four years ago, the UK arrested 3,300 people for what they had written on social media - compared with only 400 arrests in Russia for the same ‘crime’.

It could be said that the lower number in Russia was due to the fact that Russia has always been totalitarian, and fewer Russians dare to speak out as they still do in “free” Britain.

It will be interesting to see the figures in Britain in another four years. Closer to the Russian figure is my guess. Everyone in the “democratic” First World should be well under control by then.

Hi Paul,

You pose a very interesting interesting question, fundamental to all of our bickering here: How do we make things better? Via incremental or radical change? It is a question humanity has always and will always face. Radical change carries more risk, but do we always have a choice of how we change things? The industrial revolution rolled on like a tsunami through humanity and we all bear its legacy today.

But fundamental to our humanity is a social dialogue. Without it there would be no change, and the internet has enhanced that dialogue immeasurably. The social dialogue is the means by which humanity engages in the eternal quest for betterment.

I find it extraordinary that government should see benefit in suppressing this dialogue via a bureaucracy of truth diviners. Engaging in social dialogue defines us as human beings and should not be curtailed.

As a practical example Paul, aside from my bickering with JD making me very skeptical of how easy it is to determine disinformation and misinformation, looking at some of the online commentary about the Bill made me think about how just it is to make anyone exempt? If is to be a crime then no one should be exempt.