Is Albanese’s bill about truth or control? By exempting itself and allies, the government risks free speech, shaping a society where dissent is suppressed. Is this safeguarding or state censorship?
“The most alarming aspect of this bill is the set of exemptions it grants. By excluding government agencies, mainstream media, and organizations aligned with the government's stance, the legislation creates a two-tiered system of information control. This essentially allows these entities to disseminate information without facing the same scrutiny or consequences imposed on others. Such a framework not only permits but encourages a dangerous level of state control over narratives, laying the groundwork for ideological conformity. This isn't merely a matter of biased enforcement; it's the institutionalization of a government-controlled truth.”
Exactly!!!
It’s appalling that this proposed legislation has ever seen the light of day!
What is going on with all this legislation strangling us?! I never consented to this control by government.
When did governments move from being the servant of the people to being their master?
However, I’m travelling at the moment and not in a position to carefully check documents eg haven’t got a search facility.
Is ‘the government’ still protected re mis/disinformation?
I note the current explanatory document states: “Clause 16 provides exemptions for: the dissemination of content that would reasonably be regarded as parody or satire; the dissemination of professional news content; and the reasonable dissemination of content for any academic, artistic, scientific or religious purpose.”
P.S. I've made extensive notes about the issue of the ambiguity and language manipulation. The issue you raised has prompted me to get something out about it for you and everyone that wants more information to something many are intuitively aware of: "The Art of Double Speak" .
In my opinion, "the government" is still protected regarding mis/disinformation. Section 12 of the bill, "Exemption for certain digital communications platforms," particularly Subsection (3), states: "The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a digital service is an excluded service for misinformation purposes." This clause essentially grants the Minister the power to exempt specific platforms, which could potentially include government services.
When it comes to understanding legislation, I prefer to go straight to the bill itself, starting with the definitions section. It's crucial to decipher what the pertinent words actually 'mean' within the legal context. I then look for ambiguous terms within these definitions, cross-referencing with my library of legal dictionaries to interpret the most likely meaning. Legislative definitions often differ significantly from their general public meanings, and this is where much of the nuance lies. Another key aspect of reading legislation is paying attention to what's not explicitly stated.
Legislation can be crafted in a way that subtly expands government control over certain matters without the public fully grasping its intent. By strategically manipulating language, lawmakers can use vague or redefined terms to present policies as benign or beneficial. This practice mirrors the concept of "Newspeak" from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, where language is manipulated to shape thoughts and limit dissent. By carefully choosing words that evoke certain emotions or obscure the legislation's true impact, the government can frame its policies in a way that discourages opposition. Terms like "misinformation" and "public safety" can be used to justify increased regulation while simultaneously silencing alternative viewpoints under the guise of protecting the public. This kind of manipulation can erode freedoms, as the vague language allows for broad interpretation and enforcement, consolidating power without the public recognizing the threat to open discourse and individual rights.
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use words." —Philip K. Dick
"Words are instruments, they are tools that, in their different ways, are as effective as any sharp edge or volatile chemical. They are, like coins, items of great value, but they represent a currency that, well spent, returns ever greater riches." — Tim Radford
Given this context, it seems clear that my original article may not have conveyed its message as clearly as intended, so I've spent some time refining it without changing its core argument. I hope this version is clearer.
Do you think it's possible that my article was accused of circulating misinformation or disinformation and thus censored?
Still travelling, I’ve not been able to really think about this info.
Basically I question the imposition of the legislation at all, who has agreed to this never-ending interference by government.
In regard to censoring questioning of vaccination policy, I can attest this has been going on for years - it’s already happened.
Any questioning of the Church of Vaccination has already been treated as misinformation/disinformation, and dissenters labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’.
Perhaps ‘Covid’ and now the blatant misinformation/disinformation bill are an opportunity to turn the tables? Shine the spotlight on suppression of dissent which has resulted in the ‘Covid’ disaster?
Everything in your well written article is true, however I fear this is equally about both digital ID rollout and controlling narratives. It’s a bit like the proposed restriction on juveniles on social media. I mean how can they punish mis/disinformation without knowing who you are? You will soon need a digital ID to participate in social media. Which will be the start of further rollouts for those who escape that net. And while I am absolutely positively not a fan of Albanese, this is not a Labor thing. The Libs would do exactly the same. Sadly it’s a part of being one of the Five Eyes.
First, I haven’t any difference between the Libs and Labor (and now the Greens on the outside, red on the inside) for years. The Libs have been pulled left of centre. And a communist style control system is the goal ie digital ID. Which also means censorship on steroids!
We are not and have not been a democracy for many years. I don’t remember a referendum asking us whether we wanted to be part of the UN, WHO , or WEF agendas beholding to unelected bureaucrats.
The exemptions deny the moral obligation of truth telling in OUR Parliament. It is a sacrilegious betrayal of the confidence of the citizens of Australia!
Should be zero exemptions. Government needs to be compelled to abide by the very same rules that it seeks to impose upon those who they [supposedly] represent.
Where is the authority given to the government, from the people, to lie to the people?
The people are supreme.
Government [all politicians, all public servants, G & GG] is sub-servient [servants\ to the people.
Australia, if this passes, will be a totalitarian state that would make any government ministers defacto dictators. Stalin and Hitler and Franco and Mao will have company as those that disagree with the state simply disappear.
This legislation leaves no credible choice for electors when considering who will represent their ethical values and thus who should they vote for. Thus, democracy is dead!
Well, of course you are correct, Albanese's photo will be hanging next to his 'mentors'—Hilter, Stalin, Moa and all the other contemporary Neo-Marxist, want to be Communists.
“The most alarming aspect of this bill is the set of exemptions it grants. By excluding government agencies, mainstream media, and organizations aligned with the government's stance, the legislation creates a two-tiered system of information control. This essentially allows these entities to disseminate information without facing the same scrutiny or consequences imposed on others. Such a framework not only permits but encourages a dangerous level of state control over narratives, laying the groundwork for ideological conformity. This isn't merely a matter of biased enforcement; it's the institutionalization of a government-controlled truth.”
Exactly!!!
It’s appalling that this proposed legislation has ever seen the light of day!
What is going on with all this legislation strangling us?! I never consented to this control by government.
When did governments move from being the servant of the people to being their master?
I DO NOT CONSENT!
So we’ll put Elizabeth. I agree 100% with what you have expressed!
Mostly quoted you Gaz 😁
However, I’m travelling at the moment and not in a position to carefully check documents eg haven’t got a search facility.
Is ‘the government’ still protected re mis/disinformation?
I note the current explanatory document states: “Clause 16 provides exemptions for: the dissemination of content that would reasonably be regarded as parody or satire; the dissemination of professional news content; and the reasonable dissemination of content for any academic, artistic, scientific or religious purpose.”
Government is not noted there?
Have you checked this out?
See:
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r7239_ems_13b01a0b-4684-4e0e-b336-0028d4c0e3cd/upload_pdf/JC014003.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
P.S. I've made extensive notes about the issue of the ambiguity and language manipulation. The issue you raised has prompted me to get something out about it for you and everyone that wants more information to something many are intuitively aware of: "The Art of Double Speak" .
Hi Elizabeth,
In my opinion, "the government" is still protected regarding mis/disinformation. Section 12 of the bill, "Exemption for certain digital communications platforms," particularly Subsection (3), states: "The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a digital service is an excluded service for misinformation purposes." This clause essentially grants the Minister the power to exempt specific platforms, which could potentially include government services.
When it comes to understanding legislation, I prefer to go straight to the bill itself, starting with the definitions section. It's crucial to decipher what the pertinent words actually 'mean' within the legal context. I then look for ambiguous terms within these definitions, cross-referencing with my library of legal dictionaries to interpret the most likely meaning. Legislative definitions often differ significantly from their general public meanings, and this is where much of the nuance lies. Another key aspect of reading legislation is paying attention to what's not explicitly stated.
Legislation can be crafted in a way that subtly expands government control over certain matters without the public fully grasping its intent. By strategically manipulating language, lawmakers can use vague or redefined terms to present policies as benign or beneficial. This practice mirrors the concept of "Newspeak" from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, where language is manipulated to shape thoughts and limit dissent. By carefully choosing words that evoke certain emotions or obscure the legislation's true impact, the government can frame its policies in a way that discourages opposition. Terms like "misinformation" and "public safety" can be used to justify increased regulation while simultaneously silencing alternative viewpoints under the guise of protecting the public. This kind of manipulation can erode freedoms, as the vague language allows for broad interpretation and enforcement, consolidating power without the public recognizing the threat to open discourse and individual rights.
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use words." —Philip K. Dick
"Words are instruments, they are tools that, in their different ways, are as effective as any sharp edge or volatile chemical. They are, like coins, items of great value, but they represent a currency that, well spent, returns ever greater riches." — Tim Radford
Given this context, it seems clear that my original article may not have conveyed its message as clearly as intended, so I've spent some time refining it without changing its core argument. I hope this version is clearer.
Do you think it's possible that my article was accused of circulating misinformation or disinformation and thus censored?
Still travelling, I’ve not been able to really think about this info.
Basically I question the imposition of the legislation at all, who has agreed to this never-ending interference by government.
In regard to censoring questioning of vaccination policy, I can attest this has been going on for years - it’s already happened.
Any questioning of the Church of Vaccination has already been treated as misinformation/disinformation, and dissenters labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’.
Perhaps ‘Covid’ and now the blatant misinformation/disinformation bill are an opportunity to turn the tables? Shine the spotlight on suppression of dissent which has resulted in the ‘Covid’ disaster?
Everything in your well written article is true, however I fear this is equally about both digital ID rollout and controlling narratives. It’s a bit like the proposed restriction on juveniles on social media. I mean how can they punish mis/disinformation without knowing who you are? You will soon need a digital ID to participate in social media. Which will be the start of further rollouts for those who escape that net. And while I am absolutely positively not a fan of Albanese, this is not a Labor thing. The Libs would do exactly the same. Sadly it’s a part of being one of the Five Eyes.
First, I haven’t any difference between the Libs and Labor (and now the Greens on the outside, red on the inside) for years. The Libs have been pulled left of centre. And a communist style control system is the goal ie digital ID. Which also means censorship on steroids!
We are not and have not been a democracy for many years. I don’t remember a referendum asking us whether we wanted to be part of the UN, WHO , or WEF agendas beholding to unelected bureaucrats.
The exemptions deny the moral obligation of truth telling in OUR Parliament. It is a sacrilegious betrayal of the confidence of the citizens of Australia!
Well, Iet’s see if the other countries will follow in lock step. There’s talk of it here in Canada.
Ivermectin!
That should get rid of the parasites! :)
LOL!
Viven, disturbingly I don't believe it's "if," but when!
Should be zero exemptions. Government needs to be compelled to abide by the very same rules that it seeks to impose upon those who they [supposedly] represent.
Where is the authority given to the government, from the people, to lie to the people?
The people are supreme.
Government [all politicians, all public servants, G & GG] is sub-servient [servants\ to the people.
Australia, if this passes, will be a totalitarian state that would make any government ministers defacto dictators. Stalin and Hitler and Franco and Mao will have company as those that disagree with the state simply disappear.
My sentiments exactly!
This legislation leaves no credible choice for electors when considering who will represent their ethical values and thus who should they vote for. Thus, democracy is dead!
There are some politicians and parties who have rallied against this appalling legislation, but for most Australians you seem to be correct. 🫤
Well, of course you are correct, Albanese's photo will be hanging next to his 'mentors'—Hilter, Stalin, Moa and all the other contemporary Neo-Marxist, want to be Communists.