Andrew Bolt: Labor’s new Bill to crush free speech is dangerous

Anthony Albanese’s new Bill to shut down opinions Labor doesn’t like on the internet is much worse than what you’ve been told.

If you look at the fine print, free speech will be stifled by Anthony Albanese’s ‘Combatting Misinformation And Disinformation Bill. Picture : NCA NewsWire / Nicki Connolly

The Albanese Government’s new Bill to crush free speech on the internet is Labor’s most dangerous yet. Much worse than you’ve been told.

I’d hoped Labor learned a lesson in 2013, when Julia Gillard’s dying government was forced to dump plans to appoint a media regulator who could crack down on bloggers.

But a decade on, here comes Prime Minister Anthony Albanese – a former Gillard Minister still scratching the Left’s totalitarian itch – to try even harder to shut down opinions Labor doesn’t like.

I’ve just checked the fine print of his government’s “Combatting Misinformation And Disinformation Bill” and … oh, my God.

The Bill’s Orwellian name alone should scare you. So should its avowed aim – to stop blogs, podcasts and people just posting on Twitter or Facebook from putting out what the government arrogantly calls “misinformation”, threatening internet platforms with jail or fines of up to five per cent of their global turnover, they don’t cut down on supposed misinformation. For Meta, that could mean $8 billion.

And the government’s hypocrisy is astonishing. Its Bill says this “misinformation” ban won’t apply to the itself or state governments.

So governments will be free to tell lies, but you could be banned from challenging them.

The most obvious danger of this Bill is that governments and their agencies can’t be trusted to define misinformation. They trade is misinformation all the time.

For instance, our governments told us in the pandemic that it wasn’t safe to let children play outside. False.

The Bill’s aim is to stop people posting ‘misinformation’ on social media platforms like Facebook. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Nicholas Eagar

They tell us nuclear power is too unsafe for Australia. False.

They tell us global warming is an existential threat. False.

They tell us there was a “stolen generations” – up to 100,000 children stolen just for being Aboriginal – when our courts haven’t found even one.

But this double standard isn’t the most dangerous thing about this Bill.

Check the details which give the five unelected bureaucrats of the government’s Australian Media and Communications Authority disturbing new powers to shut down important political debates.

Here’s one. This draft Bill defines misinformation as information that, for instance, is “false, misleading or deceptive; and … reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm”.

But what is “harm”?

Things then get really sinister. Albanese’s Bill says “harm means”, among other things, “ hatred against a group in Australian society on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion…”.

That list, as I’ve found already, can make it very dangerous to discuss the obvious dangers of multiculturalism and mass immigration. (Just look at the violent race riots now destroying France.)

It will also make it even more dangerous to discuss ethnic crime, or whites pretending to be Aboriginal, or why Labor’s planned Aboriginal-only Voice to Parliament is a menace.

Indeed, Albanese himself complained in February that “misinformation” on the Voice was a danger to our society: “There are already people out there pushing misinformation on social media – drumming up outrage, trying to start a culture war …

“There are always those who want to create confusion and provoke division …”

In fact, another part of this Bill could be used to shut down anyone the political class accuses of provoking such “division” with their “misinformation”.

Anthony Albanese wants to shut down opinions Labor doesn’t like. Picture : NCA NewsWire / Nicki Connolly

It says harm also means internet posts which “disrupt public order or society”.

But what on earth does that mean? Does it include posting calls on the internet for a protest against authoritarian governments who impose damaging lockdowns in a pandemic?

If that’s not sinister enough, take a third definition of “harm” in the Bill: “Harm means … harm to the Australian environment.”

No prizes for guessing how activists will exploit that bit.

They’ll demand ACMA crack down on blogs, posts and videos which argue, correctly, that global warming is not a crisis and the government’s global warming schemes should be scrapped as a waste of money.

They’ll complain that’s “misinformation” that causes “harm to the Australian environment”.

Sure, ACMA, could turn down their complaints, even if it’s already too eager to police articles sceptical of the warming scare.

But defending themselves in ACMA investigations costs media and internet companies a lot of money, and facing fines of billions of dollars will make many too scared to fight.

They’ll figure it’s much safer to ban content that dissents from the government line, like they did during the pandemic hysteria.

Your free speech will be stifled. Your dissent will be suppressed. And the government’s power over you will only grow.

So say no. While you can.