Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay
The Government is not afraid of misinformation, they are afraid you will speak the Truth
Add your submission by August 20th
Misinformation is easy to correct when you own a billion dollar news agency, most academics, institutions, expert committees and 25% of the economy. The really hard thing, even with all that power and money is to defend an absurd lie and stop people pointing it out. Like for example if you want to spend a trillion dollars of taxpayer money using power stations, cars and steak sandwiches to change the global weather. For that, you need the Ministry of Truth to force the falsity on the serfs.
The best way to deal with misinformation is to speak better information.
Let the court of public opinion decide. There is something profoundly arrogant about the assumption that 26 million brains are too stupid to figure out the truth when left to their collective free debate.
The proposed Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) misinformation bill is truly the draft that Mao or the Politburo would have admired. Effectively if you are government “approved” (institutional, academic or official news) you are free to say whatever you like, but if you are the untermenschen, you are not — even if you ultimately speak the truth.
Digital media platforms will need to self-censor the vague and unknowable comments that may be misleading and may cause harm or they face monster fines like $6m or 5% of revenue (which for Twitter is something like $150m). The mushy, ill-defined and open nature of this is exactly the point. Which publisher will be able to afford to hire the QC lawyers and run test-trials to figure out in advance if a comment breaches the code? It’s so much easier just to take the safer option and shhh, skip those provocative thoughts.
Why bureaucrats can’t be left to censor free speech under Labor’s ACMA bill proposal
By David Coleman, Opposition communications spokesman. The Australian
Misinformation is defined very broadly. It is information that is “false, misleading or deceptive” and is “reasonably likely” to “cause or contribute to serious harm”. The bill then uses an extremely wide definition of harm, which includes things such as harm to the environment, harm to the economy or a section of the economy, or “disruption of public order or society in Australia”.
The Government IS “the truth”:
The bill is very poorly constructed and includes many obvious red flags. Under Labor’s bill, if the government says something, then it is not misinformation. Authorised content from any level of government cannot be misinformation. That same protection does not apply to non-government parties or ordinary Australians commenting on political matters. This is indefensible.
Academics are exempt because there’s no need to control them with ACMA, they can be sacked, intimidated, or defunded already anyhow (see Peter Ridd):
Statements made by academics are exempt, but not statements made by non-academics on exactly the same topics. So an outsider with an unfashionable view could find their contribution has been deleted as misinformation. Given the seismic contributions of unfashionable outsiders throughout history, this shows an extraordinary lack of wisdom.
Statements made as part of “professional news content” are exempt, but those statements are not exempt in other contexts. So if a journalist made a comment on their personal Facebook page, or appeared on an independent podcast, their statements could be misinformation. And if a statement made in “professional news content” is repeated outside of that environment, it would not be exempt from the law.
So if you thought you could quote Professor Peter Ridd on the replication crisis in science, or fabricated photos in reef research, think again. You may be harming the Spotted Left Wing Parrot fish.
If a Prime Minister were to say they were “the single source of truth”, say, it could be published once in a newspaper but if the punters were to repeat it ad nauseum mockingly on social media, in strictly accurate quotes, that might become misinformation? I mean, the repetition might harm the children’s sense of civic duty, after all? I don’t know, but that’s the point of the spaghetti mess in legalese. Try reading it. You are not supposed to know.
You can say anything you want from under the boot…
These apply to all Australians, not just publishers!
ACMA’S coercive powers under the bill are very concerning. Those powers apply not only to digital platforms but to all Australians. ACMA may pursue any person if it believes they have information about “misinformation or disinformation on a digital service” and that it requires the information to perform its functions. ACMA can force the person to appear before it to answer questions about misinformation or disinformation.
Journalists in professional news organizations are exempt, but not citizen journalists
Hypothetically, if any systematic corruption or intimidation (or delusional fashion) were to sweep through our main media outlets (like the idea of chopping healthy body parts off teenagers), an outsider media platform would be the one to point that out, yet they would be subject to “misinformation” codes and draconian fines.
Satire is excluded, but what if the government doesn’t find it funny?
Who decides what satire is? Whoever they are, they be the King of Conversations online in Australia:
The bill excludes statements made in good faith for the purposes of entertainment, parody or satire. But it does not exclude statements made in good faith for the purpose of political debate. So a comedian commenting on politics would be protected from having their content removed, but a non-satirical citizen offering their honest views on political matters would not be protected.
Blog Comments not allowed?
If these laws came into being, would this blog have to close all comments? Would this blog even exist?
The Ministry of Truth
James Hol on The Liberty Itch
… many are under the mistaken assumption that this will only apply to social media giants. In fact, it will apply to every single website that provides “news content” and has an “interactive feature”.
If you think you can avoid the Ministry of Truth by simply starting your own social media platform or providing content on your own website, you’d be advised to have no interest in a comments section or posting video content, otherwise that website will also be captured by these draconian laws. Indeed, this Liberty Itch masthead will be at threat of fines in the millions of dollars should this Bill become law.
While the Bill gives lip service to our constitutionally implied freedom of political communication, it attempts to circumvent it by creating a fascistic partnership between ACMA and private entities. Instead of ACMA enforcing speech, it makes digital service providers do its dirty work – at threat of significant fines.
However, ACMA can impose industry-wide standards and codes if digital service providers go rogue and dishonour their fascistic agreements. Hoping for a safe haven at Elon Musk’s Twitter (now called X), might be more pipe dream than reality.
Would I have to register as a news outlet, set up my own university, or revert to permanent satire or salad-coded language (did you take your booster carrot today?).
It appears this bill is designed to capture all the online free speech that is not already controlled by Big Government or Big Money. The new Printing Press arrived to give a voice to the People, and it must be stopped.
Please send in those submissions!
As David Maddison, Penguinite, MP, Andrew McRae, Konrad and others suggest:
Don’t forget to put your submissions in opposing the latest proposed Australian Government censorship legislation.
“New ACMA powers to combat misinformation and disinformation”.
They don’t have to be long. But it closes on August 20th.
Read Konrad’s submission here.
The bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Act 2023.
This is possibly Australia’s most dangerous legislation, ever. Controlling the flow of information enables the Government to control everything else.
I have prepared a submission and will send it today.
Among other things, I point out that people have always had access to a multitude of information sources and have made up their own minds about what is the truth. That’s not dangerous, people have always done that.
What is exceptionally dangerous, however, is misinformation from Government because it tends to be viewed as authoritative and the Government has the power to enforce their misinformation and suppress and persecute the purveyors of other information (truth) as this information seeks to do.
As examples I cite over 17 instances of mostly Australian Government misinformation (i.e. lies) most of which cost people their lives duribg covid such as saying HCQ and IVM were dangerous and toxic and ineffective against covid (taken in accord with appropriate protocols) and even the Government saying vitamins could not protect you against covid even though it has been proven that correction of Vitamin D deficiency, which is very common, even in sunny Australia, especially in nursing homes, definitely does have a protective effect to minimise disease severity and mortality.
Jo, I emailed you an earlier version of my submission, the current version just corrects some minor typos.
612
This is certainly an issue which MUST be the subject of a referendum.
Government however will never hold a referendum when they know the outcome will be an 80% NO to their dictatorial ideology.
This is probably the most dangerous government In Australian history.
Thanks Jo for this warning but it needs the rest of the independent MSM to publish & broadcast this good advice!!
301
On the other hand, if said dangerous government they can control the outcome of any referendum then there’s no problem with a majority NO vote.
60
It’s not a coincidence then that the most dangerous government in United States history is occurring at the same time…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/08/16/the-shadowbanning-of-the-united-states-internet/
51
David, Jack Nicolson said “You can’t handle the truth”. The government also believes this and will decide what the truth is for public consumption. God help us all!
261
The Spotted Left Wing Parrot fish is a mortal enemy of the Un-Spotted Right Wing Parrot fish. The fish animus has been going on for thousands of years. These fish are more important than the truth, “they are both fish”. A fish fight can only harm fish. Unfortunately, the fish fight is controlled and promoted by lawyers and they each fish daily.
60
There is absolutely zero situations in which any political enterprise ought decide what is Truth or not. By definition, any such act is political.
As Josef Stalin clearly stated “It does not matter who votes. It only matters who counts the votes”. The corollary is that “It does not matter what anyone thinks or speaks, it only matters who judges thought and controls speech”.
Allowing ANY governmental Ministry to be the Definer of Truth, is a road to serfdom. Politicians are Political, by definition. Nothing about their provenance, position, obligations, or immunity from responsibility, justifies a Political governance over free speech on any platform or method.
The Solution to any argument is more speech, unfettered, except as restricted by proper libel and defamation law.
There is no place in all of History in which those restricting speech intended or effected anything but totalitarianism.
200
I haven’t seen a single Leftist, including the ones that post here, complain about this draconian legislation.
This is a dystopian dream come true for the Left.
471
The govt are very short sighted, Labor will lose govt at some point, even with these laws covering up for them.
Then the Libs would have control of the information classification. Also imagine if the Libs were beholding to another party that has more divergent beliefs (like the Nats or One Nation).
Labor never think these things through. Always imagine how things would look if the other guys one.
261
I’m not so sure they will lose another election.
I wonder if this legislation permits questioning elements of the Whitlam dismissal?
140
True, Dianeh. The ALP are heavily into hubris. Just when they think they are winning they shoot themselves in the foot.
But the Libs are no better. Fraser was given a majority in both houses, and did nothing with it. Howard had a clear run for a little while and did use it. Now is the first time in a long while that the ALP has had a fairly clear road ahead.
40
I haven’t seen a single Leftist … complain about this draconian legislation.
More – MUCH MORE – to the point, how many ‘conservative’ politicians are speaking out about this … and about de-banking, replacing cash with digital currencies, anti-free-speech laws, mass immigration and so on, and so on and so on? Choose any item on the Left’s long agenda and look at the deafening silence coming from ‘conservative’ politicians. And marvel at how quickly the Left all around the world are pushing forward with their agenda. Then try to name one single significant and enduring victory a conservative government has delivered in the culture wars – EVER.
It’s game over; the Left have won.
382
‘It’s game over; the Left have won.’
Its game over; the Govt have won…
The reason democracy will never work is that it puts people who want power, in power. The idea that there is a difference between Left and Right is an illusion they create. It is war, those in power against the rest of us. Left and Right are as indistinguishable as the Pigs and Farmers of Animal Farm.
or maybe-
There is no Left or Right, there is only a boot stamping on a face forever.
There is one silver lining, this legislation will see a boom in satire..
280
Yes, the Soviet Union was a mine of satirical commentary and very dark humour – not overtly of course. Is this our future?
90
I think that with social media it only takes a small group of dedicated activists, combined with threats, for them to take over the commanding heights.
20
and a boom in “underground” web sites and other methods of communication – anyone remember pirate radio?
20
I’ve said it before & will continue saying it, when it comes to the great silence from our opposition it means there is IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE.
The coalition are very good at silence. Someone has previously pointed out that maybe the opposition would like to take over such legislation for their own use without having to bear the criticism of legislation themselves.
After all the coalition is known to be over crowded with ALP sympathisers hence the Uniparty label!
140
Of course not. Until THEY are impacted by their own laws.
THEN they realise what they’ve done.
It’s easy to see the level of semi panic in this thread as people realise this event isn’t 20 years away, it’s NOW!
As I said many months ago – I was talking about the world during a business deal with a VERY well informed guy 2 years ago and I said “I hoped I could get through life without having to experience the atrocities of the past, but it’s not going to happen”.
Yup. History repeats, it is right now, and it’s unavoidable.
Don’t confuse this with despondency on my part, it’s just an acknowledgment of how this world works, always has and will for a long time to come.
Don’t fear the coming storm. Prepare for it. Most haven’t.
140
Once this bill is passed it’s the end of our democracy as we know it and the beginning of a new dark era in our history where the only winners are the ruling elites and their allies in the top end of town. This is just a thought, but perhaps the voice is the big distraction and this legislation is the main game. The timing is all too perfect and the attention has been completely diverted away to the voice sideshow at play. If this new ministry of truth gets up it effectively removes everyone’s voice, indigenous or otherwise.
140
Remember how back in the day, before Rudi Dutschke’s 1967 plan of “the long march through the institutions” to install Leftists in all institutions, public and private, was completed, the Left actually believed in free speech.
Now the Left are in control, they are showing their true colours in the same manner as their predecessors, the National Socialists and the International Socialists.
331
Is the antidote to government misinformation not disinformation about misinformation. Praise the misinformation as being the absolute truth over and over again, at any opportunity that presents itself.
When your daughter comes home with a boyfriend you’re not keen on, what do you do? You welcome him like he is Santa Claus, you praise him into high heaven, spell out his obvious admirable qualities. He will last about a week.
80
It’s also disingenuous for Government to say this legislation is about mis- and disinformation (which I don’t believe they defined anywhete) when it’s really is about censorship.
To say it’s about mis- and disinformation is mis- and disinformation itself.
How low Australia has fallen!
410
Our Federal and State Governments have amply demonstrated in recent year that they are a significant source of misinformation. The amount of gaslighting that went on during Covid and now continues with their “renewable” energy push and the voice shows they arent fit to judge public opinion and speech.
I had my input. I doubt I said anything new , but another voice I guess.
300
I had my say and submitted;
300
Very disturbing. When truth becomes untruth and untruth becomes truth. What a bad dream.
150
This means that if I state the fact that a man is not a woman and never will be I will be fined.
Glorious. They can’t get water from a stone so I guess I’ll be given some vacation time and be given 3 meals a day courtesy of “the state”.
This is disgraceful legislation.
Nth Korea and China would be so proud of their “comrades” in Australia.
250
YouTube Greatly Expands Its Medical “Misinformation” Policies
YouTube, the titan of online video content, has expanded its Covid misinformation policy to cover what it calls all forms of medical misinformation.
YouTube has also declared its plan to delist videos promoting “cancer treatments proven to be harmful or ineffective,” effectively disallowing content creators from encouraging natural cures.
The platform pledges to implement its medical misinformation policies when a topic exhibits high public health risks, is supposedly prone to misinformation, and when official guidance from health authorities is accessible to the public.
According to the policy update, YouTube will no longer host content that:
Misinforms about prevention techniques or contradicts current health authority guidelines, including inaccuracies regarding the safety or efficacy of approved vaccines.
Promotes treatments that local health bodies or the WHO have neither approved nor recognized as safe and effective. Moreover, it bans content that advocates for harmful substances or practices that have been scientifically proven to be detrimental.
Denies the existence of specific health conditions.
https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-greatly-expands-its-medical-misinformation-policies
Can’t have tbose cheap effective and proven cancer treatments impacting big pharma profits.
Misinformation?
Go factor the latest trans bs into that.
Biden’s trans health secretary Dr Rachel Levine praises Alaska gender-affirming care clinic which wants word ‘mother’ replaced with phrase EGG PRODUCER
In a bid to de-gender the language, its style guide also says words like ‘gestational parent,’ and ‘birth parent’ should be used.
The Alaska-based company promotes ideas that children should learn that doctors ‘assign’ gender to babies by making a ‘guess’ – while also promoting the use of ‘gender-inclusive biology’
The Alaska-based company promotes ideas that children should learn that doctors ‘assign’ gender to babies by making a ‘guess’ – while also promoting the use of ‘gender-inclusive biology’
The section of the website, promoted by Identity Alaska, states: ‘This website aims to curate resources and connect science educators, students, learners of all types, parents, guardians, and everyone involved in supporting and learning to grow a more inclusive biology curriculum.’
The company also promotes people ditching the term ‘gender reveal party’ – and urges new families to call them ’embryogenesis parties’ or ‘chromosome reveal parties.’
Levine was made a four-star admiral of the public health service. She tends to sport her admiral’s uniform during public appearances.
Just last month, Levine said that children can go through ‘the wrong puberty.’
‘The treatment options for gender-affirming care for transgender youth really are evidence-based,’ Levine said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12413023/Bidens-trans-health-secretary-Dr-Rachel-Levine-praises-Alaska-gender-affirming-care-clinic-wants-word-mother-replaced-phrase-EGG-PRODUCER.html
Egg producer you say. Oh tbe fun we can have with that definition.
Do these morons even read or understand their own spouted nonsense?
If they talk nonsense and contradict themselves routinely, how can even they define misinformation?
120
Left-wing activists go into “apocalyptic mode” to cancel free speech alternative Bitchute.
The free speech website Bitchute is under attack once again, this time from activists pressuring Cloudfare to cancel their service. If you’re not familiar with Bitchute, it serves as a ‘free speech’ alternative to YouTube and has attracted a wide variety of individuals, groups, and movements. The left has been working relentlessly to shut it down for years now.
Once again, the left misunderstands the concept of “free speech.” Free speech isn’t about only hearing what you want or agree with. Yes, some stuff may be unsavory or unsettling, but that’s part and parcel of living in a truly free society. It’s not about silencing ugly views from a fringe Neo-Nazi or a left-wing Marxist group. Instead, it’s about fostering an environment where all ideas can be openly debated and discussed, even if they’re unpopular or uncomfortable. This freedom of thought and expression is what really matters and what the left seems to hate most — this is why they hyper-focus on these small, fringe groups.
“There’s been countless times throughout history where the governments have been wrong…You have to be able to challenge those ideas if you have any chance at all of reaching the truth.”
Bitchute representatives recently spoke of the dangers of deplatforming and censoring. What we’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg.
https://revolver.news/2023/08/left-wing-activists-go-into-apocalyptic-mode-to-cancel-free-speech-alternative-bitchute/
90
It looks like YouTube might be going after covid commentators like Dr John Campbell, Bret Weinstein, Ivor Cummins, Dr Philip McMillan, Dr Mobeen Syad and others because they can’t work out how to get them any other way.
80
What are they going to call men; mini-tadpole producers? Sorry, naughty of me.
80
Naughty, but nice!
Good one Annie.
00
The Left can’t win an evidence-based argument, thats why they always resort to censorship. Or failing that, because they don’t yet have that power, ad hominem attacks, abuse, violence and “cancellation”.
310
It is obvious that the government is in trouble, serious trouble. If it were not then they would debate their case in open forum. We know that the Voice is a crock, the Net Zero is a crock, their housing plan is a crock, their industrial relations is a crock, their resources policy is a crock, in fact their whole crappy government is a crock populated by has-beens and never-weres.
390
But hey, they are going to make their mark now; and wont that take a long time to wash out.
160
A crock pot!
But try to not panic yet, We are nearly half way into their term of government and they haven’t yet got around to some of their worst plans. They have invested an awful lot of time and work in The Voice. If that fails it will likely take them another quarter of a year to recover their balance.
And then there is the old standard stumbling block…… There is no honour among thieves.
20
Any time governments resort to censorship you know they are doing or planning evil, plain and simple. No wonder history is being rewritten or not taught. The old quote that one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from it. An in depth study of Russian history almost 100 years ago would tell a very similar story to now. The great danger now is social media and the leftists ability to make you ‘disappear’ and wipe you out like Farage in Britain. The left have certainly marched through the institutions and they will use every bit of leverage to shut down any dissenters.
340
Here is Nigel Farage sticking it up ’em –
https://youtu.be/39f96Nl1eO0
They don’t like it up ’em Captain Mainwaring –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGjQqEG-FdQ
70
Through no fault of his own Nigel’s efforts are nice window dressing for the present age which is the dawn before total censorship. Fact is, always has been, even when the truth gets out no real action or outcomes are achieved. Instead we move on to the next scandal.
Anyone remember the LIBOR scandal which surfaced in 2012 but it appears was around since 2003. Loads of traders, no doubt the likes of Blackrock et al, made even bigger loads of money and they, through their crimes, are now the elite ensuring that they hang onto the pots of cash which are used against us the victims of their crimes.
And when the peasants wanted blood for LIBOR a few traders got 2-6 year prison terms. Can anyone name any of the architects of the GFC who got prison terms? A certain “I did not have sex with that woman” president should have been brought to account for his policy of making banks make money (Ninja – no income, no job or assets) available to everyone.
Have no intention of giving up just have to be more creative in the delivery of truth. Preamble every statement with “it is my belief/understanding” “in my opinion” “I was taught to” etc. As much as Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals says to make the attacks personal it is up to the truth tellers to own their statements by qualifying them not just to the information but to a personal trait. Then the system has to prove that you/history/humanity was wrong not just you.
90
I’m gonna mis the honest commentary on this blog.
220
I can also see activist-Leftists, i.e. those not in a position of authority (e.g. those spying on their non-socialist neighbours like in socialist East Germany or National Socialist Germany) using this legislation to report their neighbours to the Ministry of Truth for being purveyors of supposed “dis- and misinformation”.
This is a dream dystopia for the Left.
This is everything they have ever worked for.
They will even use kids like this portrayal from Nineteen Eighty Four: https://youtu.be/SgL2XvqhX-Y (5 sec)
180
I would think the resident Leftists here would quite happily report the pro-science posters on this blog for thought crimes. Especially those Leftists who post under pseudonyms.
110
I am pleasantly surprised that the leader of the pretend conservative Liberal Party actually opposes this bill, or at least pretends to.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/it-is-an-attack-on-free-speech-peter-dutton-slams-labors-misinformation-laws-as-coalition-launches-petition-to-bin-the-bill/news-story/5a1b7b1ac4bf3188c0b6b40b7738b40a
But he knows they will never get into power so it doesn’t matter. And if they did get into power would they actually repeal the legislation in its entirety? Doubtful.
Don’t forget Dutton is a true believer in the anthropogenic global warming fraud and would welcome silencing of any opposition to that belief.
190
Philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson on misinformation in 1860: “As gas-light is found to be the best nocturnal police, so the universe protects itself by pitiless publicity.”
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/09/22/sunlight/
Australian Government: “some states [ie. countries including Australia] may seek to characterise legitimate debate and commentary that is objectionable to them as disinformation or misinformation.”
https://www.internationalcybertech.gov.au/our-work/security/disinformation-misinformation
The opposition are opposing this bill, but basically the media are not reporting it.
“The Coalition will be opposing Labor’s proposed new laws on misinformation and disinformation.
These laws are a threat to free speech and should be torn up.
Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental principles in a democratic society.
The draft legislation places enormous power into the hands of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
The definition of misinformation is very broad, and the risk is that it could capture legitimate content. Things which should be allowed to be said in a free and democratic society, even if we disagree with them.
The big digital platforms are likely to self-censor content in response to these laws, to avoid the prospect of significant penalties being imposed by the Australian Government.
It creates a huge financial incentive for tech platforms to remove statements made by Australians, even if they were made in good faith.
When governments seek to put undue restrictions on our democratic freedoms, we must speak up.
I’ll be fighting against these laws – join me.
Kind regards
[my Lib MP]”
130
First I’ve heard of it, a complete non-event in the media I watch. Not that I believed believe them for a second, the Right are famous for railing against the Left’s legislation, then never repealing it when in power.
You will all be happy to know the war in Ukraine is over, vanished, disappeared.. SMH this morning, it is all about womens soccer, with a bit about Sydney motorists being hit by higher toll charges and the petrol price, and an exclusive on some Abo artwork running the length of the cycleway of the Harbour Bridge.
130
“cause or contribute to serious harm to the health of Australians and/or the Australian environment”
Aren’t reports of “global boiling” damaging?
150
We had a situation arise in NZ not so long ago that scared plenty of us into silence – me included.
It was the censorship of a certain “manifesto” that was easy enough to find on the internet after the event (I don’t mean the video here). I was communicating with others re some of the statements in it which were a tad awkward for the narrative (e.g. a self described “eco-fascist”) but we had to shut down rapidly once the proclamation went out.
It was absurd because while I was reading in the manifesto where and how exactly and in detail the writer had been “radicalized” I had the TV on in the background with an ear to a bunch of “security experts” opining that the first thing they needed to find out was where and how he was radicalized.
So at the very same time I was reading first hand of the radicalization the “security experts” were completely clueless to the same reasons.
Police charged 35 people over possession of the video (not the manifesto) and one guy went to prison for 21 months for sharing it.
Today the general populace has no clue about the what where and when of radicalization except what they have been told in the approved narrative. No ACMA was needed for the shutdown – just one government censor doing his job.
140
We are in the midst of a communist revolution co-ordinated across the west.
It will fail for two reasons:
1) the incompetence of those who draw coercive power to themselves;
2) human nature is not suited to communism – the economy and society will fall apart.
The communist regime will become (is becoming) ever more brutal. Brutality is required to overcome the shortcomings of incompetence, and to overcome the ill-fit of communism to human needs and desires.
All institutional arrangements reduce human behaviour to cardboard cutouts. Institutions are inherently unable to order human relations, because they cannot understand or accommodate them.
It is notable that religious feeling is a very strong antidote to communism.
160
It is possible the words ‘communist’ and ‘communism’ above would usefully be replaced with the words ‘statist’ and ‘statism’.
130
For example, see James Lindsay’s New Discourses ‘Degrowth is Communism’,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sm49W1Hd1Y
00
This is probably the most dreadful legislation to be introduced to any Australian parliament and the left wing loonies must be smacking their chops and waiting for their chance to strike if we step out of line.
Let’s hope the so called Coalition Conservatives have the guts to argue against this tyranny and use every legal weapon to expose these vile totalitarian thugs.
230
The Uniparty are all fanatical followers of the WEF.
Instead of “you will own nothing and be happy” it will be “you will know nothing and be happy“.
Actually, it will be both.
230
You will own nothing, know nothing, and do what you are told. No-one gives a toss about how you feel. And BTW, legislation protecting people’s feelings isn’t for you, it’s only for us, and no lawyer would ever represent you anyway even if you could afford them which you can’t.
80
You are part of the community and you are part of Gaia.
We define community. We define Gaia’s interests, using our science. We are science.
Do you fit?
No?
You are the enemy of the wellbeing of the community.
Fit, or be destroyed.
There is no law for the community-dissenter.
There is no law for one who would defy our science and harm Gaia.
—
The ideas and rules that govern you do not govern us. We harvest your labour, and harvest your life.
00
This censorship will also further secure from scrutiny all those vast numbers of public serpent “jobs” involved in the anthropogenic global warming fraud and those ridiculous grants to so-called “academics” who make a lazy living from taxpayer-funded grants that are obtained without question just by mentioning “global warming”, no matter how unrelated the “research” proposal is.
201
Just reading in Thursday Open Threads a comment by yarpos apropos to the ACMA.
Comment was re flooding to save Elysium. I assumed he was alluding to the CCP flooding Zhuozhou to save Beijing Daxing airport and Xiong’an New Area.
Plenty of lessons from CCP China re suppression of free discussion, this is one of them. From Guardian:
Taken to the extreme, China is where ACMA leads.
140
Guardian >”Many online comments [like on Zhihu] about Zhuozhou were deleted by China’s censors”
Me >Taken to the extreme, China is where ACMA leads.
Second thoughts.
At least they didn’t fine $millions for dissent, just deleted the comments.
ACMA has the potential to create a sizeable revenue stream for govt without the CCP-type drudgery of individual comment deletion.
90
I recall reading or being told years ago how the main cities in Japan were all ringed by suburban apartment blocks which seemed logical as in house your workers close to the cities they work in. The article/comment however went on to point out that these same apartment blocks were supposedly built with the belief that they would act both to absorb earthquake tremors and tsunami damage and protect the city centre.
Did a quick search but main discussion re Japanese apartment blocks is that an increasing percentage are effectively old age (almost) ghettos now with a great many in seriously poor condition.
Looks like another counter to China is in serious decline.
50
So why can’t we tell the truth about their so called EXISTENTIAL threat and climate change lunacy?
Why can’t we explain to everyone that we’ve had RECORD Human flourishing since 1950 according to the UN data?
And how did this Human flourishing only occur in the last 0.1% of our Human history over the last 200,000 years?
So how come fossil fuels are dangerous when they have generated the majority of our ENERGY that happily coincided with the greatest Human flourishing in our 200 K year history?
190
Before covid Australia had an international reputation of being a somewhat easy-going, free and open liberal* democracy.
Now it’s a dystopian nightmare. The police brutality of the covid lockups is even used as stock footage portraying a future dystopia.
Now you see the true purpose of the plandemic.
*Liberal, not in the US sense, or the Liberal Party of Australia, but after the classical liberals like Larry Arnhart, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, John Locke, Thomas Malthus, Ludwig von Mises, David Ricardo, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Sowell and George Stigler.
170
No one needs to be an expert to figure out the truth, they just need to be honest, persistent, and willing to ask questions.
And there are plenty of people who can do that.
140
sunlight is the best disinfectant in nature as is free speech in seeking the truth.. More speech is better than less speech to disinfect lies misinformation and disinformation. Jo’s blog is evidence of that
180
As bad as this idea is, don’t forget it was not even Labor’s idea, it came from the Liberal faction of the Uniparty under the Morrison Regime (puppet of Turnbull).
Blah. Blah. Blah. SEE LINK FOR REST
130
>”it [ACMA] came from the Liberal faction…[of supposed Right-leaning govt]”
Similar in USA. The once Liberal Left is now the Fascist Left.
The few genuine Liberals remaining are now wondering what happened to their philosophical foundation but can’t bring themselves to vote otherwise. Except for the few becoming Independent e.g. Sinema gone, Manchin considering.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a heretic and silenced by the MSM.
Anti-war is now Pro-war.
Feminism is verboten. Men displace women now.
Free speech is anathema.
81
>”Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a heretic and silenced by the MSM.”
The Kennedys always were on the wrong side of fascism:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Tucker Carlson: I’ve Talked to CIA and Mob Hitmen Who Were Assigned to JFK Assassination
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-tucker-carlson-ive-talked/
Or as Chuck Schumer warned Trump – “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you”.
80
>”Feminism is verboten. Men displace women now.”
This is getting really complicated:
‘All-Muslim Michigan City Council Bans “Pride” Flag Displays on Government Property With Passage of Flag Neutrality Resolution’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/all-muslim-michigan-city-council-bans-pride-flag/
DEI smacked down by D and excluded from I.
No uniform utopia can be imposed when what was imported inclusively into society by progressive agenda is diametrically opposed to the host societies principles.
That is becoming painfully obvious in Europe now.
50
>”[ACMA] came from the Liberal faction….”
Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on NewsGuard back in March (see #34 dowthread):
Liberal in name only, totalitarian in nature.
70
Let’s not forget the proposals Conroy promoted during the Gillard government; Labor’s always at it:
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/archive/1352429992_document_091112_-_media_release_-_gillard_government_s_new_censorship_regime_worse_than_internet_filter.pdf
30
On this matter of causing “harm”.
Much legislation includes a part on “Transitions and Savings” so that what was legal yesterday does not become illegal tomorrow when the Act starts to have effect.
Ideally, there should be lists of actions designated as “causing harm” and “not causing harm.” The mere date of new legislation should not be a cause of new offences. Only the new actions of people will cause harm to happen and this harm must NOT be something up which society has put for generations.
In your submission, you might consider making the point that there is no accepted evidence that climate change has caused harm to date and that this observation should be stated in the proposed Act. Likewise, the combustion of coal has not caused past harm, so the mere proclamation of a new Act cannot be capable of causing a new class of harm from coal burning.
There might be current matters where acts of society are causing current harm that should be identified and listed in the Act as being in the spotlight. One could even insist on a list of spotlight examples, with action by enforcers restricted to those examples on the list. For example, acts of terrorism should be in the spotlight, but comments about the sexuality preferences of people should not because they lack demonstrated past harm to anyone.
Geoff S
110
My submission today
Rather than try and repeat the efforts of the many other submitters opposed to this bill who have expressed their arguments more eloquently than I ever could, I will add my arguments in point form to support them.
1. Making the arbiter of truth a bureaucracy (ACMA) puts the authority in the hands of those swayed by the contemporary thinking of those in power. Throughout history, the dominance of the powerful (think royalty, government, religion) has often suppressed truth either because they stubbornly clung to ancient ideas (e.g. the sun revolves around the earth) or they wanted to preserve their power (e.g. the church allowing only priests to read the scriptures).
2. The only constraint necessary for free speech is free speech. If things that are not true are published in an open forum it can, and will, be challenged and exposed by others publishing in those same forums.
3. The algorithms of the social media platforms already monitor postings’ content to determine what advertisements and other posts to push to the consumer. It would be simple (and an expansion of current practice) for the platforms to push alternative, authoritative posts to challenge what is considered false and/or dangerous information. This would be especially helpful in far more important real-life situations like suicide ideation and online bullying.
131
I am proud to be a direct descendant of one of the four knights who killed Thomas Becket. I think there are many people today who have no idea how much of a service they did for England. I hope that kind of service is never needed again.
50
We were all sitting by watching Obama and Biden destroy America but failed to notice how Turnbull, Morrison and Albanese were destroying Australia as well.
200
Would we be allowed to quote very inconvenient data, if this vile legislation was passed in Australia?
Would we still be allowed to quote the UN source that tells us that Human life expectancy was just 45.5 years in 1950 and is 73 years today, even though another 5.5 billion more Humans exist today?
And would we be allowed to quote the UN data projections that state that the 10.4 billion Humans in 2100 could have a life expectancy of 81.88 years?
140
Quoting data is not mininformation
117
‘Quoting data is not mininformation’
..but it will get your comment banned on plenty of websites. Data makes no difference to those in power who are pushing the lies.
180
That is up to the website and has nothing to do with this legislation.
115
Gee Aye, but what if the data you quote causes “harm”?
Data can be true but if it causes someone to think twice about getting a “carrot” some say that is harmful. If it causes others to delay buying an EV, isn’t that destroying rivers and lakes? If data makes people eat steak, aren’t they causing floods in Bangladesh?
And a fact is not a fact anyhow. A Professor can say something in the news, but if they write the exact same thing on Facebook (or here) that might be “misinformation” in that context.
Don’t you see how this works? It’s not the message that matters at all, it’s the publisher that is being controlled.
You will think the way they want you to think serf.
130
I wrote data not fact.
Surf sounds like a good idea.
08
So?
70
Misspelled.
Was that meant to be “mini-information”.
50
a typo
08
Is that a white racist attack on the manufacturer of the tech device you’re using, with the inference that their keyboard layout predisposes one to incorrect key presses?
If so, I’m offended, and the tech company lawyers will be in touch with you shortly.
Hey, it’s fun being a lefty! 😆
70
what ever you say.
011
Sorry but I was thrown off LinkedIn when I quoted over a dozen masking studies showing masking was useless against viruses. I also quoted other peer reviewed studies showing all sorts of harms from masking.
The data in these studies has never been refuted and neither have their conclusions.
But if this dangerous legislation gets up then idiotic and wrong concepts like masking against viruses, lockdowns and ineffective & lethal “vaccines” (which were never vaccines) against covid 19 will not have any push back. And we will be far worse off because of it. My uncle was killed because of dangerous vaxx misinformation pushed by our govt. How many more will be killed if this awful legislation gets up?
140
You’ll live
10
I thought it was impossible to get off Linkedln, Ive been trying for years to delete my account
00
No, because Climate change and pandemic policies both come from the same playbook. They are intertwined.
110
With the ALP holding the numbers in the Lower House, and holding them in concert with the Greens in the Senate, making submissions and protests and virtue signals is utterly pointless. The submissions will not even be read. Actual numbers of submissions will likely be totalled by some Level 4 PS clerk and filed.
What to do for any real meaning ?
As has been pointed out, the reason for this legislation is that the various authorities are fearful of large-scale adverse publicity. So – DOXX them, one by one, before that is legislated as “harmful”. Holmes a Court (the younger) did exactly this to the economist who had published an accurate and detailed summary of the costs of expunging hydrocarbons for energy supply from public use in the 2019 election campaign. It worked too – the “victim” went to ground to protect his family.
Just use the same tactic – don’t play their game by their own set-up rules.
90
Yep!
40
This is it , Jo . They are coming for you . We would visit you in jail but we will probably be inmates too ….we elected a political joke and now the jokes on us .
170
That’s the trouble with political jokes, sometimes they get elected.
00
Government politicians almost never read or understand the legislation they vote on, nor do they care. And especially Uniparty politicians who don’t believe in free speech anyway. They are both on the same page with respect to covid and climate change and don’t want their policies based on junk science questioned.
In fact, suppressing questioning about covid and climate change is the primary purpose of this legislation.
170
Except that ACMA is an independent body
Don’t promulgate lies. Simples.
127
“Except that ACMA is an independent body ”
Uh-huh, Utopia Australia pointed out exactly how that worked with Jim, the ‘Ministers Man’. Isn’t Govt-appointed and independent an oxymoron?
210
I see. Great argument.
213
1. Statutory bodies are exactly that – set up by government fiat. To imply independence is fatuous. You cannot legislate independence.
2. It is not “simples” to “not lie” when faceless bureaucrats determine objective truth via unknown subjective means.
I hope stating the outstandingly obvious helps
130
1. True but it doesn’t stop them being independent either.
2. Not faceless in this case.
012
ACMA is entirely dependent on government funding. By definition it cannot be independent in any sense.
You are the one promulgating self-evident lies. Mostly you fool yourself.
180
The same argument applies to the ABC. Reliance on income equals compliance of thought.
80
The TGA is funded by pharmaceutical companies?
Is that an important relationship?
30
How incredibly glib, twee and deliberately misleading. Not worthy of repudiation, your comment is simply self-evidently wrong.
100
Well debated.
213
Just imagine what it would be like if everyone got involved; massive.
50
‘Well debated.’
Let us go to the heart of the problem, we need to attract more satirists.
You enjoyed the Covid debate and Mr Fitzroy came onboard during that horrendous bushfire season, robust debates are beneficial in that they test our beliefs.
In a week or so Donald will claim we wuz robbed and he allegedly has proof, do you think its a newsworthy topic?
20
Yes. What is your point?
18
There is a world of difference between base sarcasm and satire.
30
Leaf uses sarcasm to tell a joke, whereas satire is used to persuade an audience.
40
Agreed, but let’s get with the times, it’s 2023 so it’s wong.
Yes, that’s cheap, but I wanted to thank you for the use of “twee”.
Have heard it before but must look it up and see if it can be useful.
30
It’s certainly Independent.
Independent of The Truth, and dependent on our taxes, or more recently, government acquisition of cash via sale of bonds.
Bonds are essentially a promise for the future, so someone else’s problem.
50
Independent? What part of the .gov domain name don’t you understand?
80
What part of independent don’t you understand?
013
Gee Aye, what are you protecting yourself from in your denial of ACMA’s government funding (and reason for existence).
Do you live off government grants? Is your income dependent on government rules? I’m genuinely curious at your need to blind yourself to something so banal and obvious.
What part of “dependent” don’t you understand?
170
None.
If I let my kids sleep out in a backyard tent pretending they have their own country and I feed and look after them but the address of their country is the same as my street address, how truly independent are they?
Same deal, or is even that analogy too difficult?
If they’re independent, then go read this and explain:
https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/exclusive-acma-fudges-complaints-data,16106
“Safe and effective” or “independent and impartial (implying integrity)”…
30
&Usual bunch of charlatans hiding out in a Govt sinecure. They say they only had 242 complaints to investigate that year, and they only manage to look into 4% of the complaints they receive, so they wrote letters on about 10 complaints, which would be one every month… Nice work if you get it.
10
If you believe that organisations like ACMA are really “independent”. then you’ve either led a very sheltered life, or you are not very bright or observant.
They probably have some autonomy over inconsequential decisions, but like other government run bodies with supposed independence, they can and will fall in line with their paymasters when push comes to shove.
Any actual independent organisations have no real authority to do anything, and do not need to be listened to by anyone. This is not ACMA.
50
funniest thing i read all week.
20
Commonwealth statutory authorities are only as independent as their defining legislation and their government appointed staff.
As trolls go you’re pretty bad.
10
Big brother is keeping an eye,
In Australia, on those who might try,
To expose to the nation,
The real misinformation,
By extracting the truth from the lie.
180
Brilliant Ruairi.
40
How NewsGuard Became The Establishment Guard Against Independent Media
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-newsguard-became-establishment-guard-against-independent-media
And,
>”Right-leaning outlets can receive high NewsGuard scores—as long as they follow the establishment’s narratives on specific topics”
CCP allows the Christian/Catholic church in China, “as long as they follow the establishment’s narratives on specific topics”. CCP are, helpfully, rewriting the bible. That should make it easier.
Oddly, under Chairman Mao and Chinese Communism, the religion went underground and professing Christians in China grew from 1.5 million in 1970 to 65 million in just twenty years.
80
We keep calling it “Labor’s “ ACMA bill, but it’s entirely possible the LNP may have also been told by the bureaucrats to introduce it. They were the party who administered our COVID response as a nation , and well, they botched it. They hid behind the medical bureaucrats advice, which we know sounded like the advice issued by most western governments. The media are definitely not our friend either whether it’s mainstream or social. They MSM simply repeated the government misinformation and Facebook /Twitter/ YouTube etc just censored anything not allowed. Still happening right now. If we all put in a submission will it actually make any difference? To me, it seems like our 2 major parties are probably on board with this. I’m a Victorian, our opposition LNP agreed with everything Daniel Andrews implemented during COVID. Why would they change now.
110
So will we be able to tell the truth about the reduction of 95% in extreme weather deaths since 1900? Only 1.7 billion population then but over 8 billion today?
Or the reduction in the area of global fires, or little difference in SLR at Fort Denison NSW since 1914 and much higher SLs for thousands of years during the earlier, warmer Holocene climate optimum?
Or tell the truth about the best GBR coral flourishing since the early 1980s?
100
No , because that might be interpreted as causing harm. That info might prevent authorities or individuals from implementing climate policies that could save future theoretical model predicted lives. Good question, by the way, we need more devils advocates.
90
The whole thing is basically stupid. There is a simple ‘workaround’. You simply don’t state anything as fact. You preface things you say with ‘in my opinion’, ‘in my experience’, etc.
If I were to say ‘In my opinion Albanese is a paedophile’, the statement is true because it is undeniably my opinion. I may be deluded in my opinion, but nevertheless, the statement as quoted is true.
If I were to say ‘Albanese is a paedophile’, then I would be in deep poo.
I think that’s how libel works as well.
72
Yes, the number of trigger warnings etc on the sites I read for online comics is amazing! ..and the other one are asterisks, the Selleys site I am looking at is making wonderful claims for shower silicone, but there are at least 3 asterisks there that dilute every claim they make.
So we start off with –
“This comment is a personal opinion and not to be taken as fact. May cause harm to sensitive people, reading this comment means you accept that risk, or leave now”
and finish with-
*This information was sourced from scientific studies that may not be within Govt-acceptable mainstream.
**The above is relating my personal experience with this medicine and it may not be the same for you.
***The above comments contain my facts as I perceive the world, they may not align with Govt-sponsored facts or your experience. All realities are equally valid.
60
Try arguing that defence when the Ministry of Truth tribunals are in place. I don’t fancy your chances.
70
No chance. Straight into the bin.
30
There are a number of options available as I’ve posted recently, should this blog be in the firing line.
It’d pay to act now rather than later.
The more they lose control, the more they tighten the noose around the neck of the unwashed, and they are really losing control of all the narratives, FAST.
2024/25 will be years that’ll make 20-23 pale.
There are things happening you really don’t want to know about.
“Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.”
– The Architect
70
I and colleagues were on the receiving end of the corruption of the ABC something like 20 years ago. This was followed by discovering the “hard-wiring” of the energy efficiency software by BoM and CSIRO to support the AGW nonsense. I was one of hundreds who warned the government that the “pink batts” project would make some houses less efficient and much hotter, and there would be fires and deaths. When all these happened, they said “we didn’t know”. The net zero absurdity is now mandated by NCC 2022 with more nonsense coming next month. We had the denial of what the all-cause death and subsequent excess death statistics were demonstrating, now apparently being reverse-engineered (like climate records) to say something different. Now it’s The Voice and the ACMA bill.
Some (above) suggest doxxing as a solution. Obviously someone who isn’t on any kind of pension. Face it, their ability to doxx us will be much easier than us doxxing them.
The solution might lie in the dark web, Tor project, VPNs, etc. Otherwise I think the only solution will be the arrival of the CCP. At least they might keep order while coal power stations are restored and nuke ones started.
90
It is an act of censorship, a word curiously unfamiliar to contemporary Australian commentators. The previous government followed a similar if less absolute (and less clever) path, hence the still half-hearted rejection of this proposed legislation. Three points seem fundamental.
First, ‘misinformation’ and disinformation’ are senseless terms, given meaning only by governments wishing to deceive.
Secondly, we have, still, the now-curiously unfamiliar words of Voltaire (attributed to him but a condensation of his thoughts by S. G. Tallentyre, an Englishwoman writing before the Great War): “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. What matters here is the freedom to think and express that thought. State governments have spent vast sums over decades ensuring the death of thought through the death of language. Media (and the universities) are complicit in this.
Which brings us to the third, related point. On a practical rather than abstract level consider these words of Winston Churchill (in March 1918) on speaking his mind freely: “After all, the object is to find out what is the best thing to do, and counsel and criticism are necessary processes to that end”. Would that any government minister had such an attitude in the twenty-first century.
100
Good stuff, but I’d suggest Churchill never took that message to heart. The debates he had were in his own head I reckon. And he always won.
22
My short submission:
120
There has long been an argument between the benefits of a parliamentary system, which supposedly marshalls the population to cure the excesses of government, a written constitution, which permit supposedly independent judiciary, executive, and legislative forces to find its guardrails. Clearly, no system is immune to the tender ministrations of the irredeemably venal. Australians also gave up many of their guns. A few places have been brought back from the brink without violence. The US is not one of them. Neither is the seminal home of empire, Mother Britain. One thing that is happening in some states that may be useful is that offended conservatives are not railing against the capital, they are,
with local authority, holding the lowest level woodchucks actually responsible; so the high and mighty order the local constable to enforce the regime’s rules at, say, a school board meeting, the constable, whose kid goes to the school, doesn’t. In the usual model, the govt. picks a case and makes an example of them. That seems to be failing badly, and the US is rearranging itself geographically. We are already seeing very significant social violence, complete with deaths in the tens of thousands, and major economic distress, as the left’s policies are implemented….and people are running from the locations where this is happening to friendlier places.
Canada. more of a monolith, is suffering much as Australia is for much the same cause.
While our border is open, may I suggest overstaying your visa in Florda, Tennessee, Texas, South Dakota…….
90
“the tender ministrations of the irredeemably venal” – what wonderful prose! Apposite too, at all levels of government in Australia. People are fleeing the two big cities in Australia for similar reasons, if not yet as pronounced. Syndey in particular loses many tens of thousands every year, compounded by its astronomical house prices. It’s no great leap of the imagination to see a medium term future where Australia too is irredeemably divided.
20
Just a thought.
Major AU banks are banning OTC cash withdrawals (Y/N ?) and CBDC rollout is on the horizon.
Is ACMA required for CBDC given the resistance to Covid vax, ESG, Zero Carbon etc ?
In other words, is it laying the path for seamless non-dissenting transition?
80
Can we fine the (state owned) media for their willful extreme bias, loaded language, and dishonest reporting ?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/in-depth-special-projects/story/2018902262/crown-vs-cow-the-inside-story-of-how-we-failed-to-regulate-our-worst-climate-polluter
50
Here is my submission:
This law will be the effective end of a free and democratic society if implemented.
The idea that the government is able, at all times now and in the future, to know what is truth or falsehood, is itself a colossal piece of misinformation/disinformation. Convict yourselves.
What ignorance or arrogance to think you are the arbiters of the ‘rightness’ of the speech of all the common populace.
Quite clearly, this law is designed to target the common person with the least resources to defend themselves. Government, academia and corporate media will be exempt. These three groups are free to propagate any false and self-serving narratives that they collectively or separately wish to. No voice for the common person wishing to contradict.
What are you? You are certainly no democrats.
120
If anyone wants to hear some ultra conspiracy theory type stuff, have a listen to James Delingpoles latest podcast with Ivor Cummins. Learn about Rockefellers/ UN/ WEF / Big media/ Big pharma. See how legislation like ACMA is just a product of that whole cabal. To quote George Carlin, “there’s a big club out there guys, and we’re not in it”.
120
As with all totalitarian measures of the Left, follow the money trail.
Who will make money put of this censorship?
It will be the various “fact checking” (sic) and news rating organisations.
E.g.
50
So banning ‘Woke’ is OK, but tagging misinformation is not?
017
1. Who is suggesting banning “woke?”
2. Who determines “misinformation?”
100
define “misinformation” for me.
60
1. Florida’s Stop Woke Act bans the teaching of eight categories of concepts, including concepts that suggest that “a person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex”. Many of the laws also target Nikole Hannah-Jones’s influential 1619 Project.
In January, Florida’s board of education banned AP African American studies, on the grounds that it included concepts forbidden by Governor Ron DeSantis’s law, including critical race theory and intersectionality, as well as authors such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, bell hooks, Roderick Ferguson, Angela Davis and Ta-Nehisi Coates
2.From the proposed Australian Bill
The Bill defines misinformation and disinformation as follows:
o Misinformation is online content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is shared or
created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm.
o Disinformation is misinformation that is intentionally disseminated with the intent to deceive
or cause serious harm.
o Serious harm is harm that affects a significant portion of the Australian population, economy
or environment, or undermines the integrity of an Australian democratic process.
Now tell me which is worse
212
So you believe Peter that children should feel guilt and be punished for things their ancestors did?
Judging by your comment you not only believe this is good justice, and a good educational idea but that it is criminal or “bad” to ban people from manipulating children in schools to hate one race?
It’s quite bizarre, your “moral” equivalence, that banning the teaching of collective guilt in schools is remotely equivalent to banning debate among adults on public policy topics and government failures?
Do you get paid to write this ludicrous stuff? You never answer that question, so I assume “yes”.
160
False equivalence,
If you ban ‘Woke’ there is nothing to stop banning mis and disinformation.
For example – how do you get to “teaching of collective guilt in schools” from this?
and
“banning debate among adults on public policy topics and government failures?” that is not in the current version of the proposed act, and are you saying that children can debate this stuff?
Please give me the links to the sources that support your assertion, because that is all it is at the moment
“Do you get paid to write this ludicrous stuff? You never answer that question, so I assume “yes”.” you can always tell when a discussion is being lost when the losing party goes ad hom. Come come, you are better than that
19
My link is to your own comment Peter. Evidently you don’t think Woke should be banned in schools, and you defined woke as collective shame suffered upon children:
Of course, if you don’t think children should be manipulated with generational or racial guilt, you are free to say so any time. The absence of such is noted.
I made no ad hom. (If only you understood logic and reason?) I didn’t say you were wrong because you were paid. I explained why your were wrong with reasons (which you have no reply to). Then I asked out of curiosity why you are so self-blind. I posed a simple question that you never answer. So my assumption stands that you are paid to write things that are self-evidently illogical, strawmen, trivial, or baiting. At any time you are free to correct me. You never do. Curious?
140
https://youtu.be/5L3vqAy5Qc4
10
Define significant, is an individual Significant, do we bow down to the individual.
10
AS a resident of Florida, I am used to people regurgitating the press lies about our policies. You failed, as they did, to identify the parts of the law that divide the strictures into age appropriate groups. You also fail to quote the substituted curricula, which attempts to be faithful to actual, not imagined, history (and which has been even more reviled by the left, of course). Finally, you fail to note that all of the materials you cite are still available to both teachers and students and may be assigned an taught; simply !!not as the dominant curricula to the exclusion of all others!! The idea of schools have a fact based curricula that is taught, and then enriched by materials from those with differing points of view with some sensitivity to community (and parental) standards is a problem only for those wishing to brainwash new little cult members without interference. You finally fail to note that Florida, 30 years ago a deep south joke when it came to educational standards and performance has risen to quite a high level, while a number of liberal jurisdictions that have prized narrative over knowledge have plummeted into the abyss of denying the validity of testing because their students no longer pass.
60
Dissemination of woke propaganda in schools, corrupting the minds of young children, is a universe away from banning any public comment which a government agency deems unsuitable.
20
The ACMA is nothing but a means of criminalizing speech based upon political whims.
Once a Ministry is created, it is, by definition, a political construction. Does anyone, anywhere, doubt the political loyalties of politicians?
If this ACMA is allowed, the Australians have knotted their own noose and will be punished interminably for simply disagreeing with anyone or anything that the “in power” elites decide you ought be punished for.
This is an utterly insane proposition. Allow politicians to legally punish anyone for anything they, themselves, find offensive? Bugger off.
100
Given that X (formerly Twitter) is now a free speech platform under the new management, I wonder if they’ll just close down operations in Australia? This is no doubt the plan of the Government who are terrified of free speech, like all Leftists.
60
Just had a peek at some “examples” of “harm” in the ACMA guidance:
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/communications-legislation-amendment-combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2023-guidance-note-june2023_2.pdf
Page 11, Table 1: Harms
PoliFact: “Trump did not explicitly recommend ingesting a disinfectant like bleach”.
And what “misinformation”, exactly, caused anyone to ingest bleach or disinfectants?
The accounts were “problematic” for starters:
Reports of drinking bleach to prevent COVID-19 skewed by “problematic” claims [90%]
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201215/Reports-of-drinking-bleach-to-prevent-COVID-19-skewed-by-problematic-claims.aspx
And who coerced the 10% to do so (assuming they did in fact)?
No-one. It was by their own volition if they did but did they?
Report: No evidence bleach consumed to cure COVID-19 during pandemic
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/report-no-evidence-bleach-consumed-cure-covid-19-during-pandemic
If no-one consumed bleach to cure covid then no-one was harmed.
But then,
How many were harmed by the coerced Covid vax?
How many were harmed by the withdrawal of Ivermectin from prescription?
How many were harmed by in-access to medical treatment during lock-down?
110
Richard, maybe you will want to make that example into a submission? It doesn’t say you have to be Australian, not that I noticed anyway. And you come from a country where “Government is your single source of truth” as Ardern explained.
50
Another thought is that the bleach example is a projection from politicians or public serpents.
They see themselves as stupid enough to inject bleach based upon spurious information and so assume everyone else is as well.
Besides, the Government is giving prisoners bleach to clean syringes for illicit drug use.
And the Australian Government is lying about bleach ingestion anyway.
50
FDA Admits it Had No Authority to Ban Ivermectin
“They laughed in the faces of those who wanted to take Ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They deemed it as simply a medication for horses with no real value. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) immediately jumped into action to prevent pharmacies from selling the drug. They threatened doctors not to prescribe the medicine and ran an effective smear campaign against Ivermectin.
A team of doctors recently sued the FDA for preventing them from treating their patients with Ivermectin, which was approved as a medication for humans in 1986. “FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA, said on Tuesday during the oral arguments in the case. As you may remember, people were trying to buy this medication on the black market because no pharmacy would keep it in stock. The FDA effectively prevented the public from using a medication that may have been effective in treating the coronavirus.
Why? There is no money to be made on Ivermectin as it is a cheap generic drug. Fauci would not have been getting his extra royalties from Big Pharma if there were no vaccines. They could not have imposed vaccine mandates or prolonged the fear-mongering if the public knew that there was an effective treatment available. The Emergency Use Act ushered in the experimental mRNA vaccine. The act cannot be approved if there are other available medications. Once again, the FDA acted illegally to protect those in power and keep the status quo.
Ivermectin is so effective as treating various diseases that the founders won the Nobel Prize in 2015. “Diseases caused by parasites have plagued humankind for millennia and constitute a major global health problem,” the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute stated. “In particular, parasitic diseases affect the world’s poorest populations and represent a huge barrier to improving human health and well-being.”
“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” the FDA wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in August 2021 amid its smear propaganda campaign. People DIED because they wanted us to believe there were no available treatments for the vaccine. The lockdowns, masking, vaccine mandates, business failures, supply chain issues, and every other aspect of COVID that destroyed life as we knew it could have been prevented if the “science” permitted us to use a generic drug that has proven to be effective.”
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/disease/fda-admits-it-had-no-authority-to-ban-ivermectin/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=RSS
80
A question for the constitutional lawyers really, but as the government has a constitutional obligation to act in an ethical responsible manner, and given the overwhelming demonstrably valid data showing the the vaxx agenda has no scientific or medical basis with the consequence being gross damage and indeed crimes against the population, then there serms to be a valid and indeed imperative to sack the government, a la Whitlam.
50
I think you are wrong JC II.
I don’t believe the Australian Government has any “constitutional obligation to act in an ethical responsible manner”.
There is however a “doctrine of responsible government”.
But it is essentially useless:
And have you ever meant an ethical, responsible or honest Uniparty politician?
50
Sorry? “wrong”?
I’ve heard that word somewhere before. 😁
Responsible government is one of the architectonic principles of the Australian Constitution and a defining feature of our hybrid constitutional arrangements. The traditional theory of responsible government posits an elegant chain of accountability flowing from the government to the people: Parliament is elected by the people and subject to periodic re-election; the government holds office by maintaining the confidence of the legislature and is liable to forfeit that confidence through mismanagement or adopting disagreeable policies. Thus, the government is accountable to Parliament for its actions and Parliament is accountable to the people who elect it.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0067205X19890445
40
I will repeat something that Sundance from https://theconservativetreehouse.com/ mentions quite regularly. I think it’s a brilliant summary.
110
Mentioning in passing that Nitter is unable to access Twitter, and substack is offline with technical issues.
Hopefully all just temporary.
20
I can see a surge in hosting of sites by Russia and the use of VPNs.
40
Does ACMA really stand for Albo’s Censorship Ministry of Australia? I can’t think of what else it means…
50
I’m really curious about when Up become Down.
When did the Left turn against free speech?
Here in the US, best I can cipher it’s the Trump surprise, followed shortly by alleged “white supremacists” protesting statue removal in Charlottesville VA.
(Remember, Rolling Stone magazine produced a completely fabricated story about alleged ‘rape culture’ at UVA shortly following this, I think resulting in a UVA administrator being able to retire with independent wealth provided by Rolling Stone magazine.)
Cultural note: rednecks do not color co-ordinate and parade with matching tiki torches. This is the sheltered intellectual bureaucrat private school educated script writer imagined movie redneck.
Nor do they wear matching khaki pants and hats.
This is when the ACLU turned against it’s own history.
Some say it was a fund raising pivot.
I guess those of us that remember when Up was Up and Down was Down are dying off.
Won’t even mention the women are men thing.
Wait … will saying that men can’t birth children, being that it causes “harm” to men who think they are women … be illegal mis-information in Qz?
Oz … looking a more accurate moniker with each passing day.
90
Video:
How to protect yourself from Government propaganda.
https://youtu.be/4IgLyTXLuiY
With Laura Dosworth and Winston Marshall.
20
It is not misinformation that we are being prepared to accept eating insects.
“Beware, beware, beware,”
https://youtu.be/Oxr18bOgej8
With Neil Oliver.
20
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face … forever”
— George Orwell
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
50
In line with the WEFs NWO, the UK political cabal are also in the midst of introducing a new online harms law, which will also herald in new censorship, possible ban on encrypted communications (eg WhatsApp) and a whole raft of anti democratic, authoritarian shackles that the woke Govt body Ofcom will police
If this North Korean style dictatorship and one world view is imposed, it will remove voices and their wrong sort of opinions from SM etc, but it will not stifle voices that meet in a truly real life, 21st century underground resistance and the human species will take a huge step backwards
As an intelligent, sensible, reasonable and responsible person, I want to listen to all sides, then make my own mind up where truth and fact lay
70
My submission:
70
I “had my say” five minutes ago. This is the feedback I uploaded.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is to be opposed as it unfairly preserves the benefits of free speech for only a chosen few institutions in society and casts a chilling effect over the learning capacity of all other people.
While combatting disinformation is a noble purpose, our society already deems knowingly false and misleading statements illegal in the most important of contexts, from trade and contract through to academia and justice, and it is unclear what could be usefully added by new regulations specifically on digital platforms. The bill’s working definition of disinformation as “contributing to serious harm” is prone to wider interpretation over time. It does not describe what sort of requisite foreknowledge is needed to predict harm, especially where severity of harm depends on factors that are unpredictable, nor how to prove the offender had such foreknowledge. The requirement to understand the “reach and speed” of dissemination is perhaps knowable only within a single large (walled garden) platform, but not on the open world-wide web of blogs where anybody can link to anybody for the first time at any time, so the requirement smells of a Big Tech bias. It appears well-intentioned but may not be enforceable practically by most curators.
Regarding the combatting of misinformation, there are good reasons to question the benefits and apparent nobility of such a motive. The policing of so-called misinformation in the everyday public sphere is to be opposed on the basis that people must be free to say what they believe to be true and that our conversations, especially when they contain misinformation, are steps toward a grander truth that no single human being fully possesses.
We must adopt some humility in our estimation of how much we have accurately discovered of the truth of life, the universe, and everything. There is no human being who knows all of this abstract truth. To expect a government department or a blog operator to know the truth in any and all matters is too much. This is especially so when the facts of the world are changing, goals and benefits are dependent on subjective preferences, and our vicarious knowledge is dependent on to whom we have delegated the tasks of delivering tuition and gathering news.
For the people to hold ultimate power in a democracy, information should flow from reality, through industry, academia, and journalism, to the people, then through representation to politicians and finally the public service. If the public service gains leverage over industry, academia, and journalism, it gains the ability to shape public opinion in an inversion of democracy.
This draft bill seeks (in the definition of excluded content) to give “professional news organisations” a free pass to spread misinformation. Yet the same news anchor who speaks such misinformation in their day job with impunity would imperil a blog operator with spreading the same misinformation content if they were to go home and repeat in comments on the Internet exactly what they had said in the TV studio. This is hypocritical and is clearly not a coherent attempt to support the dissemination of truth. It merely marks out particular departments and market sectors for special rights, some of whom can be relied upon to mimic government policy on any issue due to their dependence on government for funding or broadcast licenses. The possibility of the withdrawal of immunity can then be held over that sector.
This draft bill seeks to give educational institutions a free pass to spread misinformation. Again, the possibility of the withdrawal of immunity can then be held over that sector. It also seems the greatest of ironies that under this anti-misinformation bill one of the few institutions we might expect to be the natural home of truth would instead remain a protected habitat for misinformation. If we can accept that academics need to be able to correct each other over the course of a long iterative process, we can accept the average person in broader society is entitled to the same iterative learning process. If anything, our academics should be held to a higher standard than the comments section on YouTube. The “publish or perish” culture prevailing in academia needs reform if it pressures academics into generating too much misinformation in need of unfavourable corrective citations – or worse, the silent treatment.
There are statements which are objectively verifiable within specified parameters of time, place, conditions, and test methods. These are only a small fraction of all that passes for conversation. Yet even such objective statements may be questioned in the process and framework of science, a method which Richard Feynman reminded us is predicated on the ignorance of the experts. During the 2019 trial of Dr Peter Ridd versus JCU, the benefits of free speech were advocated by the Applicant in a succinct observation; Truth is not a prerequisite for a conversation, but truth may be an outcome of a conversation.
Amongst other purposes, conversations are ways in which people think out loud and obtain feedback on their own thinking. Indeed, if it were not for free speech, we would not know someone harboured malicious or unsound beliefs prior to them acting on the belief with disastrous consequence. Far from promoting harmony in society, any attempt to suppress free expression – especially of beliefs that are contested – would fail to benefit from the early warning and mid-course correction opportunities that free expression creates.
Debates, corrections, and normalisation cannot happen in secret with deletions, visibility throttling, or AI automatic filtering. People must know why a belief should be accepted or rejected, they need to see the evidence and argument. Seeing the amount of backlash upon other dissenters illustrates how much preparation is needed before disagreeing substantively (rather than lazily). All of this is triggered by, and only makes sense in the context of, a contested utterance, which must therefore be free to occur. All of that process happens already. If the only policy for dealing with misinformation on a digital platform that would be consistent with free speech principles and long term productivity would be a policy of no specific suppression, editing, nor intervention, then there can be little benefit to society in requiring an interventionist policy via the code of conduct mechanisms required by this Bill. When the best policy is no policy, we should not be passing a bill that requires any other policy.
The bill makes pretences about industry bodies deciding their own code of practice for responding to misinformation, but the bureaucracy can deem a registered or absent misinformation code as being “deficient” and order ACMA’s own code to be followed anyway. The Departmental preamble to this public consultation phase claims “the ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services”, yet section 16 subsection (2) and Section 44 subsection (2) require a platform operator to take any action that the ACMA believes is needed to reattain adherence to a code. It is ACMA’s interpretation in effect there, not the platform operator’s opinion. This is a mechanism for the public service to exercise editorial control over the content of digital public square conversations. It’s a backdoor to censorship in essence. The member for Banks recently summarised: “ACMA will be able to require any Australian to appear before it to answer questions about misinformation or disinformation and fine that person $8,000 per day if they do not appear before the ACMA misinformation interrogation.” Thus the bill creates a framework in which even the investigation process itself is a form of punishment. The cost of record-keeping and code adherence is affordable by a giant multinational but perhaps not by a lone blogger depending on what code ACMA imposes, which will unfairly inhibit diversity of content on the Internet to the benefit of certain highly capitalised companies.
Most damning of all, this bill seeks to give government departments a free pass to disseminate misinformation. Australians will wonder what intent is behind this bill when it holds such a self-serving clause.
This bill would create a chilling effect on the digital speech of most people in society, inhibiting their learning capacity, and unfairly granting immunity to a select group who are mostly dependent on government, thereby exacerbating political power disparities and upsetting the democratic relationship between government and the governed. The bill would be costly economically and morally wrong.
90
You nailed it.
With a Ramset gun.
40
Thanks, Konrad.
You had a strong point about the low trust problem that has arisen in recent years. That issue is at least as much about what citizens should and should not be expecting from government, as it is about what governments have/haven’t been doing.
30
Great submission Andrew! Not a lot more could be said. I raved on about the history of the free world – blah! you focussed with great clarity on the real world inequality the bill would promote.
40
Thanks,Vicki.
At 1400 words I was worried I’d rambled on too much.
20
FWIW, I have just submitted the following submission regarding the ACMA bill:
“I am of the opinion that this proposed legislation is a gross over-reaction to the problem disseminating false or misleading information via digital media.
We all agree that the inquisition was a bad thing – yet we are here proposing to do the same thing again.
This proposed legislation assumes that some unelected individual, or body, can determine the accuracy or factual correctness of a comment and appears to distance ACMA of this responsibility be requiring the media platforms themselves to make their own determinations – which could later be challenged by ACMA.
As a scientist I can attest that what is considered a fact today may not be so considered next year. And vice versa. This is especially so in the area of medical science.
This proposals will, in my opinion, only serve to diminish free speech and further reduce our democratic freedoms to communicate with others and discuss ideas.
I acknowledge that the spread of misinformation and misleading ideas could be a problem but that can be overcome by having a better educated population where people are able to think critically.
I would like to suggest however that the solution is not to ban, prohibit or remove such material, but to require media platforms to flag it so that the recipient of such material can be warned that an independent reviewer considers it to be false or misleading. Being forewarned or alerted, the recipient can then make up their own minds about accepting the ideas.
One aspect not covered in this proposal is deciding on who checks the reviewers and what are the penalties for incorrectly classifying information as ‘false’.
Please let the public make up their own minds – we are not all stupid.
Remember too that curtailing the dissemination of thoughts or ideas that today seem controversial, will ultimately and inevitably slow down human progress.”
70
To your fourth paragraph, the same can be applied to other areas, like, for example, Climate Change or COVID vaccines. Education continues unabated after school and university, whether we like it or not, as we experience life. My philosophy is that “The first hundred years are the hardest”.!
00
We are letting this all happen.
Some schools in U.S.A are saying in a round about way this.
Parents must pay for their children’s shelter,food, clothing, education, medical and all other expenses.
But their sex education and genitals belong to the school system and eventually the government.
Parents have no right to these areas in any circumstance
50
Thank you Jo – and Konrad – for giving us the extra push that we needed. It is no joyful thing to write these important submissions – but it is an essential part of the democratic process we are arguing must be defended.
40
Every Australian should have the right to express her/his opinion. There should be zero restraints. Every Australian then has the right, and the ability (should they choose) to accept, reject or reserve their opinions, on the validity of the stated opinions to which they have just been subjected. That should be the end of the matter/debate. If it isn’t, exactly how do opponents justify their viewpoint?
30
While not a practicing constitutional lawyer (yet) I did very much enjoy CLaw – for those who are late to the party I start with a case American Booksellers – because who doesn’t like good porn – from cases on freedom of speech in the US Supreme court we get cases that explored what constitutes American free speech as defined by their first amendment:
Justice Stewart in defining hard-core said “‘I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that’; point is they accepted that some porn was political comment & hence was protected by the 1st amendment.
Why is this relevant – as we do not have a 1st Amendment. Think of the ACMA Bill as an ‘Un-1st Amendment Law’ : it seeks to limit communication. What we do have is an implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
So if your comment is mis or disinformation or misleading and it is of an unimpeachably political nature, then the HCA will struggle not to accord you some protection. The cases are mixed however as the court will go to some lengths to say that government action does not prevent ALL political commentary – people making political commentary in malls when asked to ‘move on’ by police have mostly been unable to defend their freedom of political communication against council by-laws that require permits and disallow certain behaviours in certain spaces. Here the limitation is for all social media. You are free to stand in your back yard and hand out pamphlets.
All this means we need a first amendment but are unlikely to get it because it will allow offensive commentary in particular racial commentary that upsets people.
This means we have a society that wants everyone to be ‘nice’ – and are unlikely to support any party that pushes for Hillsbro Church style in your face nastiness as protected as ‘free speech’.
40
Perhaps given the base material, comment #68 may have more appropriately been comment #69
The Liberal Democrats now Libertarian party have as a platform a robust free speech protection and have discussed having an Australian 1st Amendment (it would of course be well down the line as we have already amended our constitution previously with 8 successful referendums – some have muliple amendments.
00
I have sent mine in, but of particular note, there is little help coming from Dutton’s Coalition Opposition. That shows just how far modern politicians have descended into the power grab morass available to them, regardless of what they say are their’values’. It would seem that despite their continual moralising over matters of gender and social intercourse, today’s politicians all have just one set of values: What powers can I get over the nation out of this?
Those that don’t like it stay silent rather than fight, and it is apparent media owners are happy to remove the citizen’s ability to debate as the media falls into line with extreme governments. Remember the old days of professional bravery where journalists actually were gaoled forever or died in defending the human rights of their fellow citizens! How far the West has fallen.
It shows just how little chance there is of the Judeo-Christian philosophy of freedoms and responsibilities upon which Western societies have prevailed for 600years, continuing to exist in any form. All politicians are now in the power grabbing, authoritarian game. It’s why they respond so fully to the international demands of the maverick elites of the EU and the UN, rather than the national good and rights of the citizens they rule. They even destroy science when it gets in their way. Science has become portrayed as mis- or disinformation.
30
I think Dutton is husbanding his resources & the team has made many points in the parliamentary debates – they dont have control of senate
00
Wonder how this censoring legislation will effect science.
Wrong data outcomes? Nobody willing to print in scientific journals, if such independent publishers still exist. Sounds very middle ageish. When the censorship fails do the powers then go the next step of prison, torture and death? One is beginning to get the idea of how those frustrated ideologues of the past drove themselves to institute increasingly heavier penalties to quieten the ‘illiterate’ mob – until the ‘mob’ rebelled and took their heads. One even begins to understand the insecurities of Putin and Xi as they go about repeating history. Maybe Albo and Biden might also reconsider the paths of subservience they are enforcing as well.
20
During the covid lockdown/mandate period the government exerted censorship through regulatory supervision of doctors & suspended people publicly bucking the party line – expect defunding, no reappointment, shadow banning & greater funding of pro-voices – later bank accounts, passports & internet accounts suspended ‘pending investigation by authorities’
00
When you have nothing left, you have nothing to lose
00
[…] The ACMA Ministry of Misinformation will fine Australians $6m for publishing the truth […]
10