Social media crackdown: fears new laws will ‘criminalise’ news

Media companies say tough new laws targeting violent material being shown online will impede news agencies.

The Attorney-General says new laws targeting social media companies isn’t aimed at limiting reporting on incidents such as the Lindt cafe attack. Picture: Getty

Australia’s media companies have attacked the Morrison government’s legal crackdown on social media companies that is set to pass parliament with Labor’s support this week, claiming it will criminalise news reporting and impede the media’s independence.

The Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material bill would see social media executives jailed for up to three years or their companies fined 10 per cent of annual global turnover if they failed to expeditiously remove the material within a reasonable time.

Attorney-General Christian Porter said the last thing the government wanted to do was prevent mainstream media reporting news and companies would only be targeted if they carried audio or vision produced by the perpetrator.

Material captured under the bill includes acts of terrorism, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape or kidnapping.

“The material (targeted in the bill) emanates from the perpetrator, so a very distinct difference between Channel Seven having a camera outside the Lindt Café siege, which in every technical sense is the video recording of murder,” Mr Porter said.

A spokeswoman for News Corp Australia, publisher of The Australian, said making digital platforms liable for what they made available to the world was overdue but the bill went beyond this.

“While we have worked with the government to try to minimise the impact, this law risks criminalising news reporting and provides significant powers to the eSafety Commissioner to take down news content,” she said.

“In the rush to pass this law it will not be subjected to any review. Given the known consequences of the legislation on news reporting we strongly recommend the government and the opposition agree that the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Security on Intelligence and Security review this law immediately after the election.”

NewsMediaWorks, which represents the interests of news publishers News Corp, Nine and Seven West Media, urged the government to proceed with “utter caution”.

“There is a great deal at stake, not least freedom of speech and the independence of news media,” NewsMediaWorks chief executive Peter Miller said.

Broadcasting industry body Free TV also rejected the proposed legislation, labelling the bill “flawed” and “rushed” and said it should be referred to the PJCIS.

“Legitimate Australian news outlets already have extensive editorial processes and standards in place and should be exempt from the scope of these laws,” Free TV chief executive Bridget Fair said.

Internet service providers, social media companies and hosting service providers can be charged with a criminal offence if they are aware of abhorrent violent conduct in Australia that is on their platforms and do not refer details to the Australian Federal Police “within a reasonable time”.

Attorney-General Christian Porter.

Companies or individuals can be also charged if they do not expeditiously cease hosting abhorrent violent material that has been watched or listened to in Australia.

Labor committed to waving the bill through the Senate today and the House of Representatives tomorrow, before the election is called as soon as this week, but opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus claimed it was a “failure” because social media executives would not be jailed as Scott Morrison had vowed.

The bill passed the Senate this evening.

ALP sources argued the bill did not target individual social media executives but companies, pointing out no single person such as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg provide a content or hosting service.

“The government’s bill has been so rushed that it fails to fulfil one of Scott Morrison’s key promises — there are no powers to jail social media executives. On the Prime Minister’s own measure, it is a failure,” Mr Dreyfus said.

“You have to wonder whether he’s even read it. Labor has serious concerns that this bill has been poorly drafted and will not achieve its intended purpose.

“Let’s be clear — Labor believes that social media companies can do better and they must do better. What happened following the Christchurch attack must never happen again.

“Labor will not stand in the way of this bill, despite our concerns. A Labor government will refer this bill immediately to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review, as would be the normal course of events if this bill had been given an adequate amount of time for consultation and scrutiny.”

Mr Porter’s spokesman said the bill “does provide for executives of major social media companies to face penalties for offences”.

The Australian understands if an executive is complicit in a reckless failure to expeditiously remove content or they do not quickly notify the Australian Federal Police of the material — if the conduct is in Australia — they could be charged under the new offences.

Mr Porter insisted it was important the government acted this week ahead of parliament going into caretaker mode for the election.

“When an event like Christchurch happens, this was the terrorist planning, orchestrating and organising the use of Facebook to spread terror, violence and fanatical message of hate. There’s no doubt you have to move swiftly to try and have a legal regime that limits that as much as practically possible,” he said.

“I don’t think Australians were expecting this as a situation where you’d call the law reform commission and have an 18- month review. We had to act this week.

“I expect if the legislation passes through both houses tomorrow it will represent the first of its type. Scott Morrison would be going to the G20 not merely with a proposition that there be a level of a globally consistent response in issues such as this but providing a model as to how that response might look, which is a very powerful tool of advocacy at those type of forms.”

Mr Porter said the bill’s goal was to change the behaviour of social media companies and executives after the original livestream of the Christchurch terrorist attack by a far-right Australian extremist was available on Facebook for 72 minutes.

Despite receiving a complaint from a Facebook user 29 minutes after it first started streaming, Mr Porter said the company “did precisely nothing” until New Zealand police contacted them 63 minutes after the livestreaming commenced.

“That’s way too long,” Mr Porter said.

The Law Council of Australia said the legislation could have “serious unintended consequences” and should not be rushed through federal parliament on the final sitting day before the May election.

Law Council president Arthur Moses SC said while steps should be taken to ensure social media was not weaponised to promote hatred and violence, proper consultation was needed for the bill to be “fair and effective”.

“Making social media companies and their executives criminally liable for the livestreaming of criminal content is a serious step which requires careful consideration. Furthermore, the proposed legislation should not absolve government taking steps to prevent crimes being livestreamed,” Mr Moses said.

“Law enforcement agencies must work with social media companies to develop intelligence sharing protocols to assist in detecting livestreaming that is broadcasting violent or criminal content.

“As we know, laws formulated as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event do not necessarily equate to good legislation and can have myriad unintended consequences. In this case it could silence whistleblowers trying to bring attention to violent atrocities occurring overseas.”