The impending laws of Australia raise concern about the role of the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) as a state censor. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill and the Draft Online Safety (Relevant Electronic Services—Class 1A and Class 1B Material) Industry Standard issued by the ACMA have the power to influence public political discussion and the dissemination of information. The Bills and standards are under the control of the government’s ACMA, and both are designed in a way that would censor any information that does not align with government thinking.
The Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill authorizes the ACMA to regulate anything it deems misinformation or disinformation online, exempting only members of the Australian Press Council. The bill will give ACMA control over smaller media players, political and organizational websites, niche internet publishers, and authors on aggregated publishing platforms. Alongside this, it will allow ACMA to impose standards of conduct and have a say in what is published on these platforms. As if to erase any doubts, the bill also declares that government information cannot be misinformation or disinformation, leaving no room for the possibility of error or lies.
Meanwhile, the Draft Online Safety Industry Standard would require service providers to monitor users’ online activity, including email, social media, and chat rooms, without the necessary safeguards and authorizations in place. Not only does this pose a significant privacy concern, but it also gives the ACMA unprecedented control over how Australians interact and express themselves online.
In light of these regulations, it is increasingly evident that Australia’s freedom of speech and the right to dissent are under threat. As institutions such as the ACMA amass greater control over information, Australians face the narrowest of margins to exercise their free speech rights and express their views without fear of censorship. The measures proposed and the staggering extent to which these would infringe upon individual rights do not hold, and the potential consequences of stifled expression could have an alarming impact on the country’s democratic fabric.