Misinformation and Disinformation (MAD) Bill
On Australia’s proposed national censorship law – TOOLKIT FOR WRITING TO YOUR SENATOR
The Australian government wants to rush through a national censorship bill.
Most Australian’s, distracted by the recent US election, disinformed and hypnotized by a smothering and lying media, do not know this is happening and certainly do not know what is in this bill.
The bill has already been rushed through the House of Representatives with a vote of 78 to 57.
It now has to pass the Senate. This is where we have to stop it. They will likely vote next week.
Below is a summary of the bill, and also an explanation of how it can, and will, be used in the public health space (their main motivation for wanting this law).
Below I discuss how they will use it to shut down public square criticism of vaccination, statins, fluoride and cancer treatment, as but four examples.
Also, I have included a list of Senators you can write to plus three draft emails/letters you can use.
This recently from the amazing Rebekah Barnett.
BREAKING: Independent senators to block misinformation bill
The Australian Government needs the support of half of the crossbench to pass its highly criticised misinformation bill, but today the government ran out of luck.
Four out of six independent senators on the crossbench have now announced their intention to oppose the bill: Senators Tammy Tyrrell, David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie and Fatima Payman. Newly independent Senator Gerard Rennick (formerly of the Liberal Party) had previously announced his intention to vote against the bill.
All these senators’ offices said they had been inundated with calls and emails expressing concerns about the bill - some said they had been contacted by thousands of people. Well done to everyone who called, emailed, or visited a senator in person.
The Coalition is opposing the bill, so even if the Greens vote with the Labor Government, Labor can’t get the bill across the line without these key crossbench votes.
It’s great news! But we can’t relax just yet.
As Senator Matt Canavan posted to X today, “Nothing is certain until the votes are tallied.” The Senate vote will take place either next week or the week after.
Senators who have come out against the bill should be thanked and encouraged, and ideally, undecided Senator Lidia Thorpe and the Greens can be convinced to vote against the bill to make it a safe win.
Let’s start with a summary.
12-point summary of the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill:
The bill grants ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) unprecedented powers to regulate online content through "digital platform rules," effectively creating a government censorship mechanism.
While claiming to target "misinformation," the bill's broad definitions allow ACMA to potentially restrict legitimate political discourse and religious expression that it deems harmful.
ACMA gains authority to force digital platforms to create "risk management" systems, essentially requiring them to pre-emptively censor content to avoid penalties.
The legislation imposes significant civil penalties for non-compliance, which could pressure platforms to over-censor content to avoid financial consequences.
Digital platforms must implement mandatory "transparency obligations," requiring them to report to the government about their content moderation practices and user activities.
The bill enables ACMA to demand platforms retain records about user content and complaints, creating a surveillance framework for online speech.
Despite claims of protecting against "serious harm," the legislation's vague definitions could allow ACMA to restrict content that challenges government positions.
The bill affects all digital platforms operating in Australia, from social media to search engines, creating a widespread censorship net.
While claiming to protect Australians, the bill grants ACMA power to make decisions about acceptable speech with limited oversight or appeal mechanisms.
The legislation's "risk assessment" requirements could force platforms to pre-emptively remove content rather than face regulatory consequences.
The bill's implementation could lead to automated content filtering systems that err on the side of censorship to comply with government requirements.
Despite constitutional protections for political communication, the bill's broad powers could effectively circumvent these protections through platform regulation.
The bill represents a significant expansion of government control over online speech, masked as protection against misinformation.
The government wants to protect you from “mis and dis” information that causes “serious harm,”, so what is that?
Serious harm is specifically defined as:
Harm to electoral/referendum processes
Harm to public health, including preventative health measures
Vilification of groups based on protected characteristics (race, religion, sex, etc.)
Intentionally inflicted physical injury to individuals
Imminent damage to critical infrastructure or disruption of emergency services
Imminent harm to the Australian economy
To qualify as "serious harm," the consequences must either have:
Significant and far-reaching consequences for the Australian community/segment, or
Severe consequences for an individual in Australia
Determination of Serious Harm
ACMA will determine serious harm by considering:
Circumstances of content dissemination
Subject matter verifiability
Potential reach and speed
Author and purpose
Source attribution
Related false information
Penalties
For Companies:
Up to 25,000 penalty units or 5% of annual turnover for serious violations
Up to 10,000 penalty units or 2% of annual turnover for lesser violations
For Individuals:
Up to 5,000 penalty units for serious violations
Up to 2,000 penalty units for lesser violations
Definitions of Mis/Disinformation
Misinformation is defined as content that:
Contains verifiably false, misleading or deceptive information
Is provided to Australian end-users
Is reasonably likely to cause serious harm
Is not excluded content
Disinformation has the same criteria plus:
Intent to deceive, or
Involves inauthentic behaviour
The key difference between mis/disinformation is intent - disinformation requires deliberate deception, while misinformation can be spread through error or mistake.
I want to focus on “public health” which is a primary motivation for the government wanting these new powers. They don’t want you telling people that their vaccines and NOT safe or effective.
Impact on Health-Related Speech
The bill specifically targets content that could cause "harm to public health," which includes:
Questioning the "efficacy of preventative health measures"
Information about "safety and effectiveness of vaccines"
Alternative health treatments "not supported by clinical data"
Content that could "undermine public trust in expert guidance and government-led public health interventions"
Determination of "Harm"
ACMA would consider content harmful if it:
Could influence people's behavior "in a way that negatively impacts public health outcomes"
Questions "government system for providing health needs and services"
Challenges "preventative health measures"
Promotes treatments alternative to those supported by "rigorous studies"
Vaccination Discussion
The bill would significantly restrict:
Content questioning vaccine safety or efficacy
Information about alternative approaches to vaccination
Data or studies showing adverse effects, even if scientifically valid
Personal testimonies about negative vaccine experiences
Discussion of vaccination risks that could "dissuade people from getting vaccinated"
The bill specifically cites that "one in five adults aged between 18-49 years agreed with some forms of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines" as justification for regulation.
Statins Discussion
While not explicitly mentioned in the search results, under the bill's framework:
Questioning statin efficacy could be considered "harm to public health"
Suggesting alternative approaches to cholesterol management could be restricted
Discussing statin side effects could be deemed "undermining preventative health measures"
Scientific debate about statin benefits/risks could be limited if it "negatively impacts public health outcomes"
Fluoride Discussion
The bill would impact fluoride-related content by:
Restricting content questioning water fluoridation as it falls under "public health measures"
Limiting discussion of potential fluoride risks as it relates to "water quality, nutrition, communicable diseases"
Classifying anti-fluoridation content as potentially causing "harm to public health outcomes"
Requiring platforms to restrict content challenging government positions on fluoridation
The bill effectively creates a framework where questioning or debating these public health measures could be classified as "misinformation" requiring platform restriction, regardless of the scientific merit of the concerns raised.
Cancer Treatment Discussion
The bill would significantly restrict content that:
Questions efficacy of standard cancer treatments
Promotes alternative cancer treatments not supported by "rigorous studies"
Discusses potential drawbacks of conventional treatments if deemed to "undermine public trust"
Shares personal experiences that could discourage others from accepting standard treatments
Specific Restrictions
The bill would affect:
One in three articles about common cancers that contain "false, inaccurate or misleading information"
Content promoting alternative treatments as options alongside conventional therapies
Information about treatment side effects if deemed to discourage treatment acceptance
Discussion of treatment success rates that differ from official statistics
The legislation effectively creates a system where questioning or critiquing standard cancer treatments could be classified as "harm to public health" requiring restriction, regardless of the scientific merit or personal experience being shared.
Other areas impacted
Based on the bill's broad definitions and enforcement mechanisms, here are potential areas where the government, through ACMA, could extend censorship:
Political Speech
Content questioning electoral processes or government policies
Criticism of government handling of crises or emergencies
Alternative views on economic policies or government spending
Discussion of political corruption or misconduct
Commentary on foreign policy decisions
Scientific and Medical Discourse
Alternative medical treatments or therapies
Climate change skepticism or debate
Discussion of emerging scientific theories
Debate about pharmaceutical interventions
Environmental policy criticism
Economic Information
Market analysis contradicting official positions
Discussion of economic downturns
Alternative financial advice
Cryptocurrency discussions
Banking system criticism
Social Issues
Religious teachings that conflict with government positions
Gender identity discussions
Cultural or social commentary
Immigration policy debate
Educational policy criticism
Media and Journalism
Independent news coverage contradicting official narratives
Investigative journalism exposing government misconduct
Alternative media perspectives
Citizen journalism
Documentary content challenging official positions
The bill's definition of "serious harm" is particularly concerning as it includes:
Harm to public health
Harm to the Australian economy
Harm to electoral processes
Damage to critical infrastructure
Vilification of groups
This framework could allow ACMA to classify virtually any challenging or controversial content as potentially harmful, effectively creating a mechanism for broad-spectrum censorship of dissenting voices.
If you live in Australia, please find out your electorate and who your local Federal Senator is and regardless of which political party they are with, contact and/or write to them.
Find my electorate
Contacting Senators and Members – Parliament of Australia
Full email list of all Senators
These are the independents and Greens.
Independent senators:
David Pocock senator.david.pocock@aph.gov.au
David Van senator.van@aph.gov.au
Fatima Payman senator.payman@aph.gov.au
Jacqui Lambie senator.lambie@aph.gov.au
Lidia Thorpe senator.thorpe@aph.gov.au
Tammy Tyrrell senator.tyrrell@aph.gov.au
Letter no.1
Dear Senator,
I am writing to express my grave concerns about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 and urge you to vote against it.
This legislation represents an unprecedented expansion of government control over online speech in Australia, with several concerning aspects:
The bill grants ACMA sweeping powers to regulate online content through "digital platform rules," effectively creating a government censorship mechanism that could stifle legitimate public discourse.
The definition of "serious harm" is dangerously broad and subjective, particularly concerning public health discussions. This could severely restrict important debates about medical treatments, preventative health measures, and public health policies.
The bill's enforcement mechanisms include significant civil penalties that could pressure platforms to over-censor content to avoid financial consequences.
The legislation effectively creates a government-enforced narrative on controversial topics by requiring platforms to implement "risk management" systems that could pre-emptively restrict content challenging official positions.
The bill's impact on public health discussions is particularly concerning, as it could silence legitimate scientific debate and restrict access to important medical information that challenges conventional approaches.
While claiming to protect Australians, the bill grants ACMA extraordinary powers to make decisions about acceptable speech with limited oversight or appeal mechanisms.
I am particularly concerned about how this legislation could impact:
Scientific and medical debate
Political discourse
Religious expression
Personal health experiences
Academic research
This bill represents a significant threat to our democratic values and freedom of expression. It creates a framework for government-controlled information that could be misused by future administrations.
I strongly urge you to oppose this legislation and protect Australians' right to free and open discourse.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Your address]
[Your contact information]
Letter no.2
Dear Senator,
I am writing to express my deep distress and fear regarding the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. As an Australian citizen, I am profoundly troubled by the totalitarian implications of this legislation.
Living under such laws would fundamentally alter the fabric of our democratic society. The prospect of government-controlled information and regulated speech creates an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship that is more characteristic of authoritarian regimes than a free democracy. Consider these chilling implications:
Citizens would need to constantly self-censor, afraid that expressing personal views might trigger government intervention.
Australians seeking medical information would be restricted to government-approved narratives, potentially limiting their ability to make informed health decisions.
The free exchange of ideas - a cornerstone of democracy - would be replaced by a system where ACMA determines what constitutes "acceptable" speech.
Platforms would be compelled to act as government censors, pre-emptively removing content to avoid penalties.
The bill's vague definitions of "serious harm" create an environment where any challenging viewpoint could be deemed harmful and censored.
The psychological impact of such surveillance and control cannot be understated. As your constituent, I ask you to consider:
How can we maintain a healthy democracy when citizens fear expressing their views?
What happens to scientific progress when challenging established positions becomes prohibited?
How can we trust a system where the government controls what information we can access?
What precedent does this set for future governments with potentially malicious intent?
This legislation represents a fundamental shift towards authoritarian control that deeply concerns me as an Australian citizen. The fear of government overreach and the stress of constant self-censorship would create a society where free thought and expression are effectively criminalised.
I strongly urge you to oppose this bill and protect our fundamental democratic freedoms. Australia must not follow the path of nations where government control of information has led to the erosion of civil liberties and human rights.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Your address]
[Your contact information]
P.S. The irony that this very letter might one day be censored under the proposed legislation is not lost on me.
Letter no.3
Dear Senator,
I write to you with deep concern about the devastating generational impact of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. I fear for the psychological wellbeing of young Australians who will grow up under this framework of surveillance and censorship.
Imagine growing up in a society where:
Young people must constantly second-guess their thoughts before speaking
Social media posts require careful self-censorship to avoid government intervention
Creative expression is stifled by fear of crossing invisible lines
Genuine questions about health, politics, or society must be whispered rather than discussed openly
Critical thinking is discouraged in favour of accepted narratives
The psychological impact on our youth would be profound:
Development of anxiety and fear around self-expression
Erosion of confidence in forming and voicing independent thoughts
Loss of trust in institutions and government
Stunted emotional and intellectual development
Creation of a generation conditioned to self-censor
We risk creating a society where:
Teachers fear exploring controversial topics in classrooms
Students learn to parrot approved viewpoints rather than develop critical thinking
Young people lose the ability to engage in robust debate
Innovation and creativity are suppressed by fear of challenging norms
Mental health suffers under the weight of constant self-surveillance
Consider the long-term consequences:
A generation raised to fear rather than embrace free thought
The loss of Australia's characteristic boldness and frankness
The death of the "fair go" mentality that defines our nation
A society where conformity trumps innovation
The end of Australia's tradition of questioning authority
As someone who will have to explain to future generations how we let this happen, I implore you to consider: What kind of Australia are we creating? Do we want our children and grandchildren to live in fear of expressing themselves? Should they grow up believing that government surveillance and control of thought is normal?
This legislation threatens to create a generation of Australians who know only whispers, fear, and conformity - a far cry from the bold, innovative, and free-thinking nation we have always been.
I urge you to stand against this bill and protect the psychological wellbeing and future of young Australians. Let them grow up in a country where they can speak freely, think critically, and challenge ideas without fear of government reprisal.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Your address]
[Your contact information]
P.S. When these young Australians look back at this moment in history, which side will you be remembered as taking - the side of freedom or the side of censorship?
I appreciate you being here.
If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
For COVID vaccine injury
Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
Thankfully this MAD bill has been stopped: 38 senators for, 38 against - that's not to say they will continue to try to push through this sort of things - but thanks for pointing this out to your readers! This was/is a close call - Australia needs a change of government!
Again… who is going to be the arbiter of the truth… THE GOVERNMENT!
Says everything!