Human rights commission raises free speech concerns in Labor’s misinformation bill

The human rights commission has warned Labor’s laws to combat online misinformation do not ‘strike the appropriate balance’ between protecting free speech and moderating content.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland in question time. Picture: Martin Ollman/NewsWire

The Australian Human Rights Commission has warned that Labor’s proposed laws to combat online misinformation does not “strike the appropriate balance” between protecting free speech and moderating content, advising that it not be passed in its current form.

While acknowledging that ­online misinformation and dis­information can have a negative impact, the commission cautions that the labels can be ­“oppor­tunistically” applied to content to undermine alternative views and stymie public debate. 

In its submission responding to the revamped bill, which will empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to fine tech giants millions of dollars for false content it deems harmful, the commission says that any ­restrictions on free speech must meet the test of “necessity and proportionality”.

“The commission recognises that misinformation and disinformation can have real and significant impacts on human rights, social cohesion and democratic processes,” the submission states.

“Yet it also needs to be recognised that information may be ­opportunistically labelled as ­‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ to delegitimise alternative opinions and limit open discussion about issues of public importance.”

The commission has welcomed changes to the bill that require the ACMA to consider free speech concerns in how it exercises its powers, but cautions the provision in the bill merely require the watchdog’s powers to “respect freedom of expression” rather than carry out its duties “with ­respect for it”.

It has also urged the parliament to scrap a provision in the legislation that targets misinformation which causes “serious harm” to the Australian economy, warning that it could censor people from “expressing opinions that unfavourably affect market trends or corporate reputations”.

Communication Minister Michelle Rowland introduced the bill last month with multiple changes, including updated definitions of key terms and exemptions for religious speech, after the draft bill provoked significant criticism from legal experts and the Coalition. The updated bill also included changes that captured political content.

“There have been changes to the definition of key terms that have provided additional clarity,” the AHRC submission states.

“Removing the definition of ‘harm’ and instead defining ‘serious harm’ is a beneficial change which improves protection for free expression.

“However, the commission continues to hold concerns about both the categories of misinformation and disinformation and the low harm threshold that remains,” the submission adds.

A coalition of faith groups has also raised concerns the bill will stifle religious speech and debate, and may incentivise social media platforms to “over-censor” content they may deem harmful.

In its submission, the group argues the bill effectively makes ­social media companies the arbiter of religious expression by transferring the burden of policing misinformation onto them, which will “only serve to make providers overzealous in the policing of content”.

“(The bill) is the legislative equivalent of a one-way ratchet, ever diminishing the ability of ­individuals who use digital services to engage in free and open public discourse,” the submission states.