ACMA Censorship Legislation stopped-for now. But will it come back in a form that is even more restrictive?
The Government says it's going back to the drawing board with its proposed mis and disinformation legislation to include 'religious speech'. Could that make bad laws even worse?
Starting in April of this year, the Informed Choice Substack became aware of moves afoot to control (restrict) our ability to communicate online, with the Albanese Government mooting the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.
This proposed legislation would see The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), an appointed group of bureaucrats that is not accountable to the Australian public, responsible for censoring anything those in power might consider to be misinformation or disinformation (terms that are never actually defined but are assumed to mean anything the government doesn’t approve of).
The list of those exempt from this legislation speaks volumes
Whilst you and I would need to watch what we say so as not to bring ourselves to the attention of the politburo, those who would be exempt tell you everything you need to know about the true intent of this legislation:
The government. It is not clear whether this means only the government in power at the time (e.g. Labor) or anyone in any parliament)
The favoured media. I assume this means that alternative media like Rebel News and CitizenGo and anyone writing on platforms like Substack would not be exempt. Only mainstream mouthpiece liars like the ABC, SBS, Murdoch and Packer media outlets would be so blessed.
Your voices were heard-which is what this bill is meant to target…
When I asked you to write submissions opposing this proposal, you came through with flying colours! Your letters to ACMA and all previous posts on this subject can be found at this link.
According to the Australian Government, more than 2,500 submissions were received regarding the ACMA censorship legislation. Yours comprised a not insignificant part of that total.
A little over half have been published on the Government website. They say the balance will also be put up the uploads are going very slowly. The AVN’s submission has not yet been included in the tranches uploaded.
Victory or Whitewash?
George Christensen of the Nation First Substack writing on behalf of CitizenGo calls this a Victory (of sorts). He warns however that though we have a reprieve until at least sometime next year before the dictators in Parliament try to control our speech again, saying:
“…the reality is we don’t trust the Albanese Labor Government to jettison all anti-free speech provisions in this bad bill. Only by getting the government to completely abandon this bad bill will we truly be able to save online free speech in Australia.”
The Spectator Australia in today’s Flat White column was even more unequivocal in its criticism of the government’s proposal.
In a column entitled Christians beware, Labor’s ‘religious exemption’ makes Misinformation and Disinformation Bill more dangerous, there is a stark warning for those who might be led to believe this fight for freedom is over.
Promising that government would ‘take on board responses’ and ‘improve the Bill’, the Communications Minister Michelle Rowland somehow missed the thrust of the complaints which stated, effectively, ‘SHRED THIS PIECE OF DANGEROUS, SELF-SERVING GARBAGE!’
…Which brings us to Labor’s plan to bribe the Bill’s passage into law by promising to ‘protect’ religious speech.
We write ‘protect’ with a dubious air because in practice this is likely to mean that certain religious speech advantageous to Labor’s voting base will be protected, while other religious speech will not. How often do we see double-standards in relation to culture play out in this country? Where is the evidence this Bill is any different when its existence is designed to quieten political dissent?
The reason Labor is apparently going back to the drawing board is because they supposedly want to protect religious speech.
What does this actually mean? And what if one doesn’t practice any religion - will your speech still be considered sacrosanct?
My religion is freedom. So will that mean my speech would be protected under these changes?
Somehow, I doubt it.
I will, of course, be watching this issue closely and will keep you informed of any updates as they arise. But for now, do not rest in your fight for freedom of all kinds - speech, religion, bodily integrity, etc.
Further references
Why is Labor’s bill on combatting disinformation so controversial?
New legislation to combat online misinformation
The only reason he wants to block free speech is because he’s got plenty to hide and people are awake up to him and The VOICE didn’t get passed because people spread the word it was a bad idea and he’s very sneaky and can’t be trusted. He should be removed from parliament. We are free snd have always had free speech. We don’t want to end up like China. And who is Albanese anyway, must be up to something if he wants to shut us up. All this is to make his masters happy like the lickes of Klaus Shwarb.
So tired of the double-speak. NO is a very good boundary word. We are 'threatened all over the country' by clowns 'who dont get it!'. As God says in His
Word - 'There are those who can only devise evil continually'. And those us us who dont want to go down this path have to continually have to say NO NO NO and 'not grow weary'.