Australia’s proposed misinformation bill criticized for vague language News โธ Australia โธ Regulation
Australia’s proposed misinformation bill criticized for vague language
Critics warn Australia's misinformation bill's vague terms could stifle free speech and hinder public discourse.
2 min read
Updated: Sep. 13, 2024 at 6:29 pm UTC
Cover art/illustration via CryptoSlate. Image includes combined content which may include AI-generated content.
Australia’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 continues to ignite heated debate, with critics arguing that the bill risks stifling free speech.
The proposed bill, which targets misinformation related to elections, public health, and critical infrastructure, requires tech companies to establish codes of conduct.
Platforms failing to self-regulate will face standards imposed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which would oversee enforcement. This could include fines of up to 5% of total global revenue for platforms that fail to comply with the new rules.
However, free speech advocates warn that this could have a chilling effect on legitimate public discourse and potentially limit people’s ability to criticize public institutions.
Vague language
VanEck head of digital assets Matthew Sigel took to social media to highlight that the bill categorizes certain speech acts, such as those that might “harm public confidence in the banking system or financial markets,” as potential grounds for penalization.
Sigel expressed concern over the broad and vague language, suggesting that normal discussions about financial institutions could be unfairly targeted under the guise of misinformation.
Sigel’s concerns echo those of other free speech advocates, who argue that the bill could inadvertently suppress public criticism of key institutions, including financial markets, and embolden tech platforms to over-censor in an effort to avoid fines.
Additionally, critics, including legal experts and opposition figures, have raised alarms over the bill’s vague definitions of “misinformation” and “disinformation,” arguing that such language leaves too much room for subjective interpretation and overreach.
Doing nothing is ‘not an option’
The legislation comes amid a broader global movement to regulate tech giants and reduce the spread of disinformation, but the pushback in Australia signals an ongoing debate about balancing free speech and public safety.
Despite the criticisms, the Australian government contends that the bill is necessary to combat the spread of misinformation that threatens democracy, public health, and infrastructure.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland defended the legislation, stating that inaction on misinformation is “not an option” given the threat it poses to public safety and democracy.ย She emphasized that the government expects tech platforms to comply with Australian law and has warned companies against threatening to bypass or undermine these regulations.
She also highlighted that the amended version of the bill ensures that certain types of content will be explicitly protected as the government aims to strike a balance between combating harmful misinformation and upholding freedom of speech.
These include professional news content, as well as any artistic and religious content โ which are considered crucial for free expression and public discourse.ย However, critics remain skeptical about the scope of these protections, with the main concerns revolving around the potential for subjective interpretations of what constitutes protected content.
The bill is expected to be introduced in parliament next week, setting the stage for further heated debate over its broader societal impacts.
Author 
Assad Jafri
AJ, a passionate journalist since Yemen's 2011 Arab Spring, has honed his skills worldwide for over a decade. Specializing in financial journalism, he now focuses on crypto reporting.
