Our last compilation of letters to ACMA in support of Freedom of Speech. You all did yourselves proud!

I am also curious to know (and have asked for) the following information:

1. How many submissions were received in total.
2. How many were in favour of censorship.
3. How many were opposed to the censorship legislation.
4. Whether someone from ACMA was required to read each submission or not.

I will let you know the answers to these questions as soon as I have them.

As always, I simply did not have time to thank EVERYONE who wrote and send copies of their submissions to me so please take it as read that I am incredibly grateful to each and every one of you! And this email is too long to read in your email programme so click on the title to read it in its entirety on the Substack website.

I am starting with this incredible 147-page submission written by someone who really knows their stuff! And continuing on to the rest of the submissions sent in over the last few days. You guys are all incredible!

Acma Submission3.78MB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload

Gidday,

A retired Registered Palliative Care Nurse.

Any Opposition Government - no matter who, in Australian (and elsewhere) have had to stand up and say things that the other side (Government in power) don’t like.  They could be accused of spreading hate speech/slander/misinformation/disinformation etc.

I oppose any form of censorship in Australia so I do not support this legislation - or the ridiculous fines/imprisonments either.

We elect the Government and then you bring in this ridiculousness!!  And your mates from where?  The KGB training school of censorship?  The CCP trials of surveillance and all think/thought control?

Did you know that one of the first things Putin did (and most other dictators anywhere) is to put the others in prison, censor free speech, give themselves licence to do so many awful things - and ensure they can’t be voted out - just like the Chinese in the CCP, Pol Pot, Idi Amin - the list is endless - if you want that so much - how about you pack up and go live there?  And leave us to live in Australia - the Australia we love and where free speech and open debate has been revered!

I didn’t put you in this camp, Mr Albanese.

Nor, because you were elected to serve the people honestly and honourably, did I think you would stoop this low.

My Dad has always been a Labour man - was shocked that I wanted to make up my own mind on the merits of each candidate at each election.  If you have lifetime voters, then you can do what you like and not earn the trust, and not work for your money - unlike nurses etc.

I see that the science has been clear - REAL science - but you guys in Government have chosen to misrepresent, misinform, spread disinformation and hate speech galore - muck-raking and calling many good people ridiculous things that would have you imprisoned yourselves - had these draconian laws been in power and you in the opposition!!

Australia has been a wonderful place to grow up. No wonder so many of my friends from all around the world, have come to live here in the lucky country and bring their skills and talents here.  So many fled the ‘isms’ of their countries of birth to come here - no wonder they’re jumping up and down and screaming ‘wake up!’ to the masses!

How dare you?

How dare you!

What makes you think that, especially after the last three years, you understand what free speech and misinformation and disinformation actually are?

Not happy Jan!

I oppose any form of censorship in Australia so I don’t support this legislation. This is a fundamental issue in our society and our democracy. We all need real debate, free flow of all information and opinions, and the ability as individuals and society as a whole, to be able to address issues in a dynamic and open manner.  This and other forms of censorship would be the death of democracy.

To Whom It May Concern
Re: ACMA powers to combat Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (the Bill).
I oppose any form of Censorship in Australia so I do not support this Legislation in any way shape or form.
I oppose any laws which would empower ACMA or any other Australian body to restrict in any way our right to communicate freely on any issue whatsoever.
Especially when the Government and Main Stream Media are exempt from this bill.
If I live in a democratic society, where is my choice to choose.

I write in response to the ACMA’s request for feedback on the proposed Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (the Bill).

Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental rights in a democracy.

This proposed bill to restrict free speech is a severe overreach of authority and a danger to our democracy as it will stifle public debate and criticism on government and their policies. It will only cause damage to society and further the mistrust in governments. It is what we accuse China and other authoritarian regimes of.

More debate on differing opinions/facts should be encouraged, not silenced.

Who gets to determine what is misinformation or disinformation and what is the truth?

Determining what qualifies as so-called ‘misinformation’ is subjective.

So-called mis/disinformation, unless it incites violence, does not cause direct harm.

Australia already has laws to deal with incitement to violence.  

The past three years have shown that many things declared as ‘fake news’ one day end up being proven truthful several months later. One of the biggest lies told to the public by government and health authorities was that Ivermectin was only a “horse paste” and should not be used as a treatment for Covid-19. This drug has been  used safely for human use for approximately 60 years and numerous studies has shown its effectiveness at treating Covid.  Many lives could have been saved.

We were bombarded by governments, health authorities and MSN to go get your PCR test, run at a cycle threshold so high, it was guaranteed to show false positives in many people without any symptoms. thereby inflating Covid case numbers. The outcome generated a level of fear among much of the  public.

Governments and health authorities misinformed us about the need and effectiveness of wearing masks. Numerous studies say otherwise.

Federal government and our health authorities  assured citizens that the vaccine would protect us personally and would stop transmission - lies. Has shown to be neither effective at stopping infection or stopping transmission, but has in fact caused harm, and deaths.   The mantra “safe and effective”  is a lie.

Hate speech and derision was allowed by government and social media directed at anyone who was reluctant to submit to a Covid19 vaccine.

Many small businesses were crushed as a result of government mis/disinformation.

Social media censored the posts from those who unfortunately were seriously injured by the vaccine, so the public would not be alerted to serious side effects. Reports of deaths after vaccine were banned on social media. 

Eminent highly qualified scientists, virologists, and immunologists’ voices were ignored and silenced.  Doctors were harassed, deplatformed, even barred from practising.  Peer-reviewed papers were not allowed to be posted. 

People have been being accused of misinformation but have later proven  to be correct.

 I note that governments, federal, state and local, health bureaucrats and MSN will be exempt from the provisions of mis/disinformation in the bill, yet they are the very voices we cannot trust regarding their current truths.

In a democracy it is not the role of government to stifle free speech, irrespective if anyone is offended.

ACMA and the Federal Government should not have any say in censoring Australians on any issue,  even if they are wrong or misinformed.

I am fundamentally and vehemently opposed to this Bill. Australians do not need it, nor want it. Please abandon it.

Thank you for your consideration.

To Whom it may Concern,

I oppose any form of censorship in Australia so I am completely against the proposed Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.

I believe that in Australia we should be allowed to express our opinion without being penalized for doing so. Australia is supposed to be a free country and this bill would severely restrict freedom of speech.

I do not support the proposed bill in any form.

I strongly oppose giving ACMA  the power to decide what is mis or dis-information.

This appears to be very much like CENSORSHIP!

This bill should NOT be allowed to proceed.

With regards to the misinformation and disinformation bill - It would be wiser for the people to make their own decisions based on their own research, resources and information.  We DO NOT need Government and Mainstream Media making choices for the people.

Based on the last 3 years - Government and Mainstream Media (who will be exempt from this proposed Bill) have been the biggest and loudest spreaders of Disinformation and Misinformation! that has resulted in serious harm and death.

The situation where the Government gets to determine what is true and false and is exempt from the legislation itself, is very concerning.   Who or what gets to decide what is truth?  Each of us have a God given birth right of free will to make our own choices and decisions.  We are born with a moral compass to tap into that guides us to what is right and just for ourselves and the highest and best for all.  The Government and Mainstream Media have certainly not demonstrated this in the past 3 years.  

In fact, it has illustrated how 'fact checkers' can get it so wrong, especially when money and agendas are involved.  Pretty much everyone with a different view and understanding of Covid to the Government were attacked and silenced.  Professionals, Specialists, Doctors were threatened with the loss of their careers if they spoke out against the narrative, regardless of their years of experience and expertise to help people.   Professional Health Experts offering remedies and nutritional support to prevent and treat Covid were also silenced.  

TIme now shows the devastating truth (which Government and Mainstream media is still not talking about) that thousands of people have been harmed by mandated experimental injectables that were parroted as safe and effective with a slogan of ‘trust the science’ – which no one was allowed to question.   We now know that this was bought science because Real science welcomes questioning.           

I do not approve of the proposed ACMA powers to combat misinformation and disinformation. I believe that every Australian should be able to speak freely and share ideas and thoughts on any subject, providing the opportunity for us to learn and grown individually and collectively. 

The current Government and Mainstream media have demonstrated that they are no longer a reliable source of truth.

I am against the proposed legislation.

I object in the strongest possible terms to this proposed legislation to combat ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. Democracy is founded upon everyone being able to have their say and voice their opinion without fear of retribution. Combatting misinformation and disinformation is just censorship under the guise of a different label. Thinking back to examples in history where censorship was rigorously performed, some names like Hitler and Stalin spring to mind but certainly no one I can think of that we would want to model a democratic society upon. 

YouTube and other social media platforms already seem to be doing an excellent job of censorship even without the threat of fines. Recently YouTube censored the video of the maiden speech of John Ruddick, a democratically elected member of the NSW parliament (although this speech has recently been reuploaded). It would seem to me that in a democracy it would be more appropriate to fine YouTube for this outrageous censorship, not compel them to carry out even more. Let all voices and opinions be heard and let the people decide- isn’t that how a democracy is supposed to work?

Exactly how will it be determined that something is misinformation/disinformation? Please remember that at one stage saying that smoking was bad for you would have been classified as misinformation and censoring these voices would have led to a prolonging of bad public health policy. Open debate about all matters of contention is absolutely essential for the advancement of science. I hope that you will not be taking advice from serial criminals such Pfizer - this is not defamation, it is easy enough to look up their criminal record. It is the responsibility of governments to monitor the actions of large corporations because we all know that if left to their own devices the tendency seems to be towards greed and corruption. We certainly shouldn’t be using their word as the source of “correct information”.

In the words of our national anthem:

 “In history’s page let every stage Advance Australia fair” 

This legislation is not advancing Australia, it is sending it backwards. I can assure you that history’s page will not look favourably upon this censorship.

I do not consent to any form of Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights essentially states that everyone has the right to hold opinions and express them without interference.
We have seen recent examples of the Prime Minister Albanese stating that he had not read the Uluru statement in full, but yet was expressing his opinions as if he had. 
And the Queensland Premier issuing a statement omitting that the costs of the rail work had blown out by many millions of $$'s and when caught out by the media, said she was always going to tell the taxpaying public about it. A cynic may believe she deliberately lied.
The recent covid-19 debacle was another good example of lies being told by government people.
For a government to dictate what we are allowed to write & publish smacks of a dictatorial communistic fascist regime more suited to North Korea and other well known totalitarian countries.
I do not consent to any such Bill or Act.

I oppose any form of censorship in Australia so I don’t support this legislation

Thanks

The premise for the bill is that: “Misinformation and disinformation pose a threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy.”

This is not a fact, it is highly disputable. I, and many others, would argue that increasingly top-down control of public communication is the biggest threat to democracy, society and the economy today. There is absolutely no need for this bill, unless the bill is intended to provide more power to beaurocrats and politicians and to create more inappropriate collusion between industry and government .

Some (but not all) of specific concerns with the bill:

1.     The current definitions of ‘Misinformation’, ‘Disinformation’ and ‘Serious Harm’ within the Bill are unworkable. Given that the Bill rests upon these definitions, this renders the Bill itself unworkable. The definitions should be amended such that they are not contingent on the identification of “truth”, but are rather aimed at capturing content that is of a criminal character, or which constitutes a criminal offence.

2.     If the Bill is to be allowed to pass, stronger protections for free speech must be incorporated into it, which would require a drastic re-drafting of the Bill. Anything less should not be allowed, because freedom of speech and expression are such fundamental rights in our democracy. This is especially salient given the bill purports to aim to protect democracy.

This Bill has already contributed to undermined trust in government in Australia, it’s passing would obliterate any small amount that remains. We need more open discussion in Australia, not less. We need more free speech protections enshrined in law, not attacks against it. If thus Bill focused specifically on criminal activity (instead of seeking to criminalise open discourse that doesn’t support government-approved messages) that would be a positive. We need more pressure on social media companies to protect all Australians, and in particular our children, from criminal activity, not from debate and speculation around culturally relevant issues.

I do NOT support this bill.

Dear Committee members,

Submission

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.

I propose that the old adage, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, be heeded and that this Bill be rejected in its entirety. It is important to note that the Government itself is excluded from the proposed laws and I would argue that, if the purpose of the Bill is to support democracy, the Bill needs to be reversed so that applies only to the Government and its bureaucracies. Our Governments and bureaucracies have become far too dictatorial as is currently being demonstrated in the VOICE debate and previously demonstrated during the ‘COVID’ period. Their powers to control debate should be reduced not expanded.

For all previous referendums, the Government of the day acknowledged that the decision was not the Governments and was strictly for the people to make and sought only to ensure that the people were fully informed on the case for YES and on the case for NO so that they were able to make a balanced decision. In the case of the Voice, many normal protocols had been abandoned with the Government first offering tax relief for expenditure only for the YES case and at first refusing to provide a YES/NO pamphlet and whilst these bad decisions may have been reversed the Government continues to push hard for only the YES case. In addition, the Government has refused to give details against legitimate enquiries preferring to provide only an emotional response in calling the enquirer a racist working on misinformation and it now seeks to cap debate through this new Bill.

On what basis could anyone make an unbiased decision on what is misinformation particularly since many of the details that are of interest to the people will not be determined till after the referendum? Even when the details are known, there is frequently a conflict of interest and decisions made by such bodies as ACMA are not necessarily unbiased. Some history behind my concerns follow:

1.     APRA still refuse to acknowledge that bail-in exists and that Banks can convert ordinary deposits into shares without the permission or knowledge of the owners of those assets and it also denies the occurrence of de-banking where a corporation or individual is denied access to any banking services whatsoever. Why were those that fought against bail-in considered to be conspiracists and spreaders of misinformation despite the mountain of evidence in Government documents? In New Zealand, bail-in at least is known to all and people have an option of protecting their deposits by banking with the government owned Kiwibank while only few Australians are aware of bail-in and have no access to a secure government bank.

2.     Why did AHPRA attempt to cut-off any and all discussions regarding ivermectin and ban its use as a treatment for COVID despite that (a) ivermectin is listed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a very safe drug, (b) it received a Nobel Prize, (c) it was used 4 billion times for human treatment since 1987 and (d) it had been a major success in the treatment of COVID in India, Japan, Mexico and Peru? Given ivermectin’s history, doctors should have been free to discuss its potential with their patients but instead they faced fines and loss of license under a claim of misinformation?

3.     The ‘official line’ at the start of COVID included a statement that masks were not effective against the virus but this changed to being effective indoors and later, in some jurisdictions, people were fined for failing to wear masks even at beaches and other outdoor venues. Why did the ‘official line’ encourage the branding of persons as ant-vaxxers and spreaders of misinformation for simply pointing out that the manufacturers of surgical blue masks stated on the packaging that the product “is not a respirator and will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (Coronavirus) or other viruses or contaminants. Wearing an ear loop mask does not reduce the risk of contracting any disease or infection”?

4.     When Prime Minister Albanese states in parliament that VOICE is a very modest request and then states the opposite to VOICE proponents, how would ACMA determine which or both are misinformation when these messages are spread in the media. In my view, both statements should be widely available to the general public so that the people are able to give appropriate weight to the claim and to the credibility of the Prime Minister.

5.     Would those that provide links on social media to statements made by elders from an aborigine tribe in WA and others from a tribe at or near Uluru that they intended to vote NO be considered to be Racist working with misinformation? I believe that this is likely since it is against the ‘official’ government line as was the case in the APRA and AHPRA examples above.

I am absolutely convinced that the public would be best serviced by a media that is essentially free from censorship particularly when it comes to discussions of the policies of the government and their bureaucracies and that the “Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023” should be rejected in its entirety’

The notion of a governmental body regulating speech, regardless of its ostensible aim, strikes at the heart of individual freedoms that democratic societies like Australia hold dear. This proposed law raises grave concerns over its potential to undermine the fundamental human right of free speech. In its essence, freedom of speech implies the freedom to express views without fear of retribution or censorship, even if those views are controversial or disliked. It's an inviolable principle that has allowed democracies to flourish by encouraging open discourse, diversity of thought, and a vibrant civil society.

The danger of such legislation lies in the potential for misuse and the erosion of free speech. Any governmental regulation of information, especially in an area as broad and as poorly defined as "misinformation" and "disinformation", will easily veer into outright censorship or suppression of dissenting voices. It will create a slippery slope where the government becomes the sole arbiter of truth, silencing any opposition or criticism. Such a scenario is reminiscent of authoritarian regimes, not the open society that we all pride ourselves on here in Australia.

The fact is this proposed legislation will be used to silence the Australian population. This is not merely hypothetical, it's a reality that governments, once bestowed with the power to control information, have shown a propensity to misuse this power to suppress dissenting voices and manipulate public opinion. Therefore, it's entirely plausible that the government WILL use this mechanism to silence those they disagree with. This isn't fearmongering or baseless speculation; it's a concern grounded in a historical context where governments have enacted similar measures with detrimental consequences and this is why it should never ever be allowed.

Moreover, there's an egregious irony at play here. The Australian governments themselves, the ones now claiming to be the arbiters of truth, have been proven guilty of spreading some of the most harmful misinformation and disinformation of all time and have taken absolutely no accountability for it. There are countless examples from the past 3-years where the misinformation came directly from the government apparatus, leading to devastating consequences on a societal scale. You should be ashamed of yourself for the harm and destruction you have caused. And now you want to silence us all?

Indeed, the methods proposed in the legislation are reminiscent of tactics employed by authoritarian regimes, rather than practices befitting a democratic society. Communism suppresses all notions of free speech because the government controls what is true. This proposal is deeply alarming. We live in Australia which is a robust democracy, not under an oppressive communist regime as you are suggesting with this idea.

The world has witnessed these rules and regulations in countries like China, North Korea, Russia, and Cuba. In these nations, the government completely and absolutely regulates the flow of information, silencing all dissent and opposition under the guise of maintaining stability or preventing misinformation. These are not models we want to emulate here in Australia yet that is what you are proposing. The examples of communist nations 

 serve as reminders of what happens when the state controls the narrative, stifles free speech, and suppresses dissenting voices. They paint a bleak picture of life under an oppressive regime that Australia, as a bastion of democratic values, should seek to avoid at all costs. 

Australia is a proud democracy. Our strength lies in our people, in our freedom of thought, speech, and our ability to question and challenge those in power. Our nation thrives on its diversity of opinions, vibrant debates, and a shared belief in the basic human right of free speech. Let it be clear, Australia is not North Korea. We are not China, Russia, or Cuba. We are Australia, a land where freedom of speech isn't a privilege granted by the state, but an inalienable right of the people. I firmly reject any attempts to undermine the right to say what I want in public no matter how much it disagrees with the false and fake government narratives. Any proposal, such as this one, that risks mimicking the repressive tactics of authoritarian regimes has no place in Australian society and you should be condemned for suggesting that it does.

t is with the utmost concern that I write concerning the proposed Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.

It appears to me that this is a severe overreach of authority and a restriction of free speech such as we are akin to believing is the case in soviet style Russia, in North Korea or under the militarized junta of the CCP.

Recent history has proven that such information as western styled governments including our own have chosen to suppress as conspiratorial or as misinformation have in fact proven to be both truthful and factual and that such suppression has been clearly wrong. Witness the stories concerning the origin of the SARS CoV2 epidemic or the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in that bastion of democracy, the USA. Here in Australia our Federal Government applied pressure to social media platforms to suppress stories concerning the Covid lockdowns, alternative treatments and questions arising out of the efficacy of the Mrna vaccines. Senator Antic of South Australia using freedom of information requests has brought to light over two thousand instances of this interference during the Covid pandemic. I, myself was sanctioned by social media for writing and posting a poem which someone somewhere considered to be misinformative. It seems to me that Government and vested interest is already overreaching and to legislate power to do so flies in the face of free speech and if a person is not free to speak, then he is not free at all and our decent into slavery is complete.

Back in 1956 when George Orwell’s 1984 was made into a movie, those of us old enough to have seen it recoiled in horror as to the possibility of this dystopian society ever emerging. Now, here we are ready to embrace a ‘ministry of truth’. Surely it is time to trust people to make their own decisions concerning truth and untruth, that which makes sense and that which does not and to decide for themselves that which is factual and that which is propaganda!

Informed Choice is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.