Law

Home Law Page 3

A Digital Dark Age

Step into my parlour, said the spider to the fly,
‘Tis the prettiest little parlour, that ever you did spy,
Oh no, no! then said the fly, to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up to your winding stair, 

Can ne’er come down again.

Mary Howitt’s old poem could well be describing another web, the one that ensnares us all – the world-wide-web.

Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions. It is because of this web, that we are now in this predicament. 

We have all been caught, and to quote Mary Howitt, we’re ‘ne’er coming down again’.

In January 2023, the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, announced that the Albanese Government would introduce new laws to provide the media regulator – the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – with ‘new powers to combat online misinformation and disinformation’.

The proposed new bill, the Communication Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill, would:

The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

– Enable ACMA to gather information from global tech companies and require them to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation and provide those records to ACMA.

– Enable ACMA to request industry to develop, vary and/or register a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which ACMA could then register and enforce.

– Allow ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard, should a code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms

– Empower ACMA to regulate electoral and referendum content, but NOT the power to regulate political parties with regard to misleading and/or deceptive conduct.

– Empower the Minister to direct ACMA to conduct investigations into any matter regarding misinformation or disinformation and empower the Minister to set the terms of reference for any such investigation.

The Bill also provides for significant penalties for digital platforms or individuals that do not comply with the Bill and/or the new codes and standards the Bill creates. Penalties include:

– Imprisonment of up to 12 months for providing false or misleading information to ACMA.

– Non-attendance at an ACMA investigation hearing of up to 33 penalty units ($9,000) for each day of non-attendance.

– Non-compliance with a registered code of up to 10,000 penalty units ($2.75 mill) or 2% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

– Non-compliance with an industry standard of up to 25,000 penalty units ($6.88 mill) or 5% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

Other penalties may also apply. 

The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions.

Ms Rowland said the government was committed to introducing legislation that would fine social media companies for allowing misinformation or disinformation to be broadcast on their platforms. 

Misinformation is defined as ‘false information that is spread due to ignorance, or by error or mistake, without the intent to deceive’. 

Disinformation is defined as ‘false information designed to deliberately mislead and influence public opinion or obscure the truth for malicious or deceptive purposes.’

“In the face of seriously harmful content that sows division, undermines support for pillars of our democracy, or disrupts public health responses, doing nothing is not an option.

“The proposal would empower the regulator to examine the systems and processes these tech giants already have in place, and develop standards should industry self-regulation measures prove insufficient in addressing the threat posed by misinformation and disinformation”.

Harsh words indeed.

In its submission to the draft bill, the Law Council of Australia warned that the proposal could have a ‘chilling effect on freedom of expression’ by allowing social media giants and the communications watchdog (ACMA) to decide what constitutes information, opinion and claims online.

And in case anyone is thinking this is solely a Labor Party contrivance, before the 2022 election the Morrison government pledged to, ‘… introduce stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers’.

To cap it all off, waiting in the wings is ‘mal-information’, defined as ‘truth which is used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country’ and ‘information that stems from the truth, but is often portrayed in a way that misleads and/or causes potential harm.’

To invoke Climate Czar and former US Presidential candidate Al Gore, malinformation might be otherwise described as ‘an inconvenient truth’.

Tomorrow: part 2.

Another Round of the Circus

Reproduced with permission from The BFD https://thebfd.co.nz/2024/04/16/another-round-of-the-circus/

Another day, another court case, and the scandal that just keeps on giving… keeps on giving.

Justice Michael Lee has handed down his verdict in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation suit against Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson — and what a curious judgement it is. On the one hand, Lee states what has been obvious from the beginning, that both Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann are “unreliable historians”. Both, as he notes, have told a great many lies.

He also hints that the case would likely not have passed the bar of a criminal trial.

Yet, for all that, he feels justified in “I just reckon”ing what happened in a senator’s office that night.

‘I’m convinced … that sexual intercourse did take place, and that took place with Mr Lehrmann on top of Ms Higgins on the couch in the minister’s office’

Yet, the only evidence for this is the assertion of a woman whom he also says “was not fully aware of her surroundings”.

The only thing that’s certain about this whole sordid affair is that the media-political class will continue to exploit it for all they can milk. 

Justice Lee states that, as video and witness evidence shows, both Lehrmann and Higgins were drinking and “passionately kissing and posing for selfies taken by Ms Higgins”. Higgins also willingly accompanied Lehrmann on the fateful Uber ride, when everyone else elected to go home. He further just reckons that:

He has found it’s unlikely Brittany Higgins said “no”, and more likely she was passive during the incident.

Those of us unburdened by a prestigious legal career might be given to wonder how the learned judge feels justified in making such a crucial statement, given that he is, as he says, relying on two most unreliable people.

Still, he’s the learned judge, and I’m just a tosser with a keyboard. I guess we’ll just have to defer to his learned wisdom.

Bruce Lehrmann “told deliberate lies” when giving evidence, but is not a compulsive liar, Justice Michael Lee says.

As such, he will not accept any evidence from Mr Lehrmann unless it is corroborated by a reliable witness or a document, or amounts to an admission.

Yet he accepts Higgins’ uncorroborated evidence, despite also finding that she also lied about a great many key matters, and,

“selectively curated material” on her phone before handing it over to the AFP and “told untruths when it suited her”.

The scandal that just keeps on giving… keeps on giving

At least one of Justice Lee’s findings is indisputable:

Justice Michael Lee says the Bruce Lehrmann defamation matter has become “a proxy for broader cultural and political conflicts.”

He said responses to the judgment would vary, due to a variety of responses and attitudes to sexual assault.

“Some jump to predetermined conclusions because they are disposed to be sceptical about complaints of sexual assault, and hold stereotype beliefs about the expected behaviour of rape victims described by social scientists as rape myths,” he said.

“Others say they believe all women, surrendering their critical faculties by embracing and acting upon a slogan arising out of the #MeToo movement.

“Some have predetermined views as to the existence or otherwise of a conspiracy to suppress a rape for political purposes.”

The claims of a political conspiracy are blown out of the water.

Justice Michael Lee says any allegation of a political cover-up of the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins is “objectively short on facts”. (The Australian)

Which, if nothing else, casts a grave shadow on the Albanese government’s weaponisation of the case.

The only thing that’s certain about this whole sordid affair is that the media-political class will continue to exploit it for all they can milk. And that a woman who “told untruths when it suited her” is now at least $2.5m richer, courtesy of the same politicians who falsely peddled a “a conspiracy to suppress a rape”, for their own obvious political gain.