Good 'day Fester,

I certainly agree with your 2 examples. why arrest those people, that's excessive. I believe, as bad as it might sound, there's needs to be boundaries set. As is often said, along with freedom of speech comes responsibility, using lies to insight hatred for political advantage is one of the oldest tricks in the book. I'm no legal expert, and this legislation does need to be carefully vetted before being enacted, JD has put forward a strong argument as to it merits, it will be debated and hopefully the Parliament gets it right.

Fester,

The implied freedom of political communication in Australia is very specific. It only protects speech related to government and politics; not a general right to free speech. The Law Council of Australia explains that, for a law to be challenged successfully, it has to be shown that it unfairly limits political discussion. The courts would then have to determine if those limits are reasonable and if they serve a valid purpose.

In this case, the Bill focuses on reducing harmful misinformation, not political expression. If someone reproduces content for educational purposes, they should fall under the Bill’s exemptions, provided they aren’t using it to spread harmful or false information. The exemptions are there for professional news, academic, and educational content, which are already regulated by separate codes of conduct and standards.

In short, the Bill is structured to be proportionate and would not violate the implied freedom unless it were shown to be unreasonable in its application.

The MAD Bill is bad enough for the Victorian Bar Association to oppose it. “it is better to fight information with information” than to “coerce” people towards other views”, they say.

ttbn,

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, that would be ideal. But, as I also mentioned, covid (among other recent events) showed us that facts can't compete with disinformation campaigns.

Facts just aren't as exciting as conspiracy theories, and they're far too dry to appeal to people's emotions with. So, that's rather naive of the Victorian Bar Association. They should know better.

Hi Paul,

I was interested to learn that the laws the Brits use were enacted to stop Mosley and his blackshirts at a time when fascism was a great threat to democracy. Ironically Thatcher used them against the coal miners, so ultimately the laws have become a tool of government to suppress political protest.

https://jacobin.com/2022/09/queen-death-monarchy-censorship-free-speech

Hi John,

"But, as I also mentioned, covid (among other recent events) showed us that facts can't compete with disinformation campaigns."

But covid is an excellent example of how difficult it is to define misinformation and disinformation and the considerable harm that can come from decisions that might be thought to be in the public interest. Nick Coatsworth gave an interesting discourse on the matter in the AFR yesterday.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/a-cure-for-disinformation-that-s-as-bad-as-the-disease-20240930-p5keks

It will be interesting to see if the legal opinion has changed much in the latest submissions. I would doubt that it has.

Hi Fester,

The danger with "free speech" is the rise of extremism, you mentioned Oswald Mosley and how laws were enacted in Britain to prevent fascism. By all accounts Hitler was a great orator and used his right to free speech to influence millions with "hate speak". Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's Minister For Propaganda, holding a very influential position with Hitler, Goebbels probably did more to spread the evils of Nazism than any other person on earth.

Today in our modern society with mass communications though the internet and television etc, a person with access, can influence millions within an instant. My question is; How do you make that person responsible for what they say, and how do you call them out when they lie?