I just read a bit of this bill.

Government claims to have three aims for the proposed law.

While I disagree with this whole concept of law-making in general, two of these aims are relatively reasonable so I wouldn't worry too much about them: to reduce public-health risks; and to try to maintain economic stability.

The third goal is sinister: they want to maintain social cohesion.

I found this definition:
“Social cohesion involves building shared values and communities of interpretation, reducing disparities in wealth and income, and generally enabling people to have a sense that they are engaged in a common enterprise, facing shared challenges, and that they are members of the same community.”

In other words, first they force us into a "society" without even asking for our consent, a society which they can rule according to their own mediocre-at-best values, not ours, then they attempt to mentally glue us together!

When we are glued together we are helpless and cannot resist them.
When we are glued together we cannot exercise our conscience.

Even if they manage to shut my mouth, they have no power over my mind: I do not share their values, I do not share their interpretation, I am not a partner to their enterprise, I do not share their goals (thus challenges), I harbour no false sense of community - and I do not intend to do any of these.

Without a mind of our own, we are better off dead!

Hi Yuyutsu,

The Bill might even violate article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Australia is a signatory. Article 7 states:

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination"

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/commission-general/universal-declaration-human-rights-human-rights-your-fingertips

Dear Fester,

«The Bill might even violate article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights»

Possibly, I am not a legal expert, yet what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, is not determined by human declarations.

You know what I think of human rights:

We are born with our golden God-given natural freedom, then the state (which is nothing more than an arbitrary conglomeration of people without any divine authority), robs it away and returns to us a few copper "rights" as our "change".

The UN declaration is full of logical cavities and inconsistencies. Suppose we were indeed all equal as humans, which is nonsense of course, then why only humans? Why not also animals, plants and even rocks? We are indeed equal in our underlying divine essence, but the costumes we wear as humans, which include our bodies and personalities, are obviously not equal.

Hi Fester,

'Freedom Of Speech" is a basic human right, but its also one of the most abused rights. At what point does "free speech" turn into "hate speak". Speech is a powerful weapon, and in the wrong hands its a most powerful tool used to do wrong, but in the right hands it does a power of good. Never before has there been the ability to communicate with others to the extent it is today through mass media, particularly television and the internet.

We would both agree that there should be laws, and there are laws, to curb abuse. The dangerous use of lies to vilify others, to engender hate towards others, to create false beliefs about others. BUT, the problem is the ones charged with enacting laws to prevent abuse, our law makers, are often the very one who are advantaged by the abuse of "free speech".

Fester,

The bill wouldn't violate that article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the exemptions are based on the nature and role of the content rather than any characteristic of the person or group creating it.

An example of the difference here is the fact that professional news is already subject to strict codes of conduct and editorial standards; it is regulated differently but not exempt from oversight. All of this is covered in the Hansard I linked you to.

The Bill aligns with the principle of equal legal protection for all, while balancing the right to freedom of expression. Legislation isn't just cobbled together so haphazardly that some unqualified journalist could spot a gaping hole like that.

Hi Paul,

It is certainly a good idea to deter malicious activity, but I don't see much sense in arresting a fellow for shouting "Who elected him!" at the king's coronation, or even threatening to arrest someone with a blank piece of paper on the basis that they might write something inciteful on it. Much of the criticism I have read of the proposed legislation relates to its vagueness and the inequality of its application. e.g.

ttps://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/opinions/why-misinformation-bill-risks-freedoms-it-aims-protect

Hi John,

"The bill wouldn't violate that article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the exemptions are based on the nature and role of the content rather than any characteristic of the person or group creating it."

Still, a pleb could get done for reproducing something exempted as educational content. That isn't good. The Law Council of Australia discusses a potential legal challenge:

"15. While the Australian Constitution does not recognise an explicit right to freedom of
expression, the High Court of Australia has held that an implied freedom of political
communication exists in recognition of Australia’s system of representative
government established by the Constitution.20 This is a limited Constitutional
freedom in that its protective scope extends to discussion of ‘government and
political matters’. The implied freedom is not an individual right, but instead restricts
laws that interfere with free communication about government and politics. The
freedom only has practical effect if a properly constituted court determines that
legislation (or arguably an executive decision) disproportionately burdens the
relevant political speech.21 That is, it may be limited by laws that are reasonably
appropriate and adapted to serving a legitimate end in a manner that is compatible
with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government.22"

https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/5b25938f-d346-ee11-948a-005056be13b5/4410%20-%20S%20-%20Combatting%20Misinformation%20and%20Disinformation.pdf