Australia’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024: Balancing Misinformation Regulation and Freedom of Speech
Introduction
In September 2024, the Australian government announced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech.
Background and Key Features of the Bill
According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were:
- Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans, risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
- Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
- Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry.
- Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually.
- Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further, it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots.
- Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.
Key Concerns
- Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill.
- Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing. Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics, is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.
- Threat of Government Overreach: The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.
Conclusion
While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.
To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.
Resources
- https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf
- https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation
- https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc
- https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry
- https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024
- https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde
- https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission
- https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry
Related Blogs
Introduction
As e-sports flourish in India, mobile gaming platforms and apps have contributed massively to this boom. The wave of online mobile gaming has led to a new recognition of esports. As we see the Sports Ministry being very proactive for e-sports and e-athletes, it is pertinent to ensure that we do not compromise our cyber security for the sake of these games. When we talk about online mobile gaming, the most common names that come to our minds are PUBG and BGMI. As news for all Indian gamers, BGMI is set to be relaunched in India after approval from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
Why was BGMI banned?
The Govt banned Battle Ground Mobile India on the pretext of being a Chinese application and the fact that all the data was hosted in China itself. This caused a cascade of compliance and user safety issues as the Data was stored outside India. Since 2020 The Indian Govt has been proactive in banning Chinese applications, which might have an adverse effect on national security and Indian citizens. Nearly 200 plus applications have been banned by the Govt, and most of them were banned due to their data hubs being in China. The issue of cross-border data flow has been a key issue in Geo-Politics, and whoever hosts the data virtually owns it as well and under the potential threat of this fact, all apps hosting their data in China were banned.
Why is BGMI coming back?
BGMI was banned for not hosting data in India, and since the ban, the Krafton Inc.-owned game has been engaging in Idnai to set up data banks and servers to have a separate gaming server for Indian players. These moves will lead to a safe gaming ecosystem and result in better adherence to the laws and policies of the land. The developers have not declared a relaunch date yet, but the game is expected to be available for download for iOS and Android users in the coming few days. The game will be back on app stores as a letter from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has been issued stating that the games be allowed and made available for download on the respective app stores.
Grounds for BGMI
BGMI has to ensure that they comply with all the laws, policies and guidelines in India and have to show the same to the Ministry to get an extension on approval. The game has been permitted for only 90 days (3 Months). Hon’ble MoS Meity Rajeev Chandrashekhar stated in a tweet “This is a 3-month trial approval of #BGMI after it has complied with issues of server locations and data security etc. We will keep a close watch on other issues of User harm, Addiction etc., in the next 3 months before a final decision is taken”. This clearly shows the magnitude of the bans on Chinese apps. The ministry and the Govt will not play the soft game now, it’s all about compliance and safeguarding the user’s data.
Way Forward
This move will play a significant role in the future, not only for gaming companies but also for other online industries, to ensure compliance. This move will act as a precedent for the issue of cross-border data flow and the advantages of data localisation. It will go a long way in advocacy for the betterment of the Indian cyber ecosystem. Meity alone cannot safeguard the space completely, it is a shared responsibility of the Govt, industry and netizens.
Conclusion
The advent of online mobile gaming has taken the nation by storm, and thus, being safe and secure in this ecosystem is paramount. The provisional permission form BGMI shows the stance of the Govt and how it is following the no-tolerance policy for noncompliance with laws. The latest policies and bills, like the Digital India Act, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, etc., will go a long way in securing the interests and rights of the Indian netizen and will create a blanket of safety and prevention of issues and threats in the future.
.webp)
Executive Summary:
Recently, a viral post on social media claiming that actor Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to pray in celebration after the success of his film, PUSHPA 2. The post features an image of him visiting the temple. However, an investigation has determined that this photo is from 2017 and does not relate to the film's release.
Claims:
The claim states that Allu Arjun recently visited a Shiva temple to express his thanks for the success of Pushpa 2, featuring a photograph that allegedly captures this moment.
Fact Check:
The image circulating on social media, that Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to celebrate the success of Pushpa 2, is misleading.
After conducting a reverse image search, we confirmed that this photograph is from 2017, taken during the actor's visit to the Tirumala Temple for a personal event, well before Pushpa 2 was ever announced. The context has been altered to falsely connect it to the film's success. Additionally, there is no credible evidence or recent reports to support the claim that Allu Arjun visited a temple for this specific reason, making the assertion entirely baseless.
Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly and it’s far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
Conclusion:
The claim that Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to celebrate the success of Pushpa 2 is false. The image circulating is actually from an earlier time. This situation illustrates how misinformation can spread when an old photo is used to construct a misleading story. Before sharing viral posts, take a moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly, and it is far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
- Claim: The image claims Allu Arjun visited Shiva temple after Pushpa 2’s success.
- Claimed On: Facebook
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Introduction
As the sun rises on a new chapter in the Indian telecommunications narrative, the corridors of power in New Delhi are abuzz with palpable excitement and a hint of solemnity. Here, a groundbreaking proposal stands before the lawmakers of the Lok Sabha, not simply a proposed amendment or update to an existing statute, but the cornerstone of a reimagined communications epoch—the Telecommunications Bill of 2023. In every sense, this legislative masterpiece embodies a country at the intersection of tradition and innovation, eager to part ways with vestiges of colonial infrastructure that have shaped its modern landscape.
The Origins
Steeped in history, India's telecommunications system has persevered through a patchwork of regulations and ad hoc policies, growing somewhat unwieldy under the shadow of the Indian Telegraph Act (1885), the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1933), and the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act (1950). Yet, it is within this context of the old guard, a relic of British administration, that the new Telecommunications Bill seeks to transcend the limitations of the past. It aims to dismantle barriers and create an ecosystem that is fluid, adaptable, and resonant with the rapid cadence of technological advancements and the demands of a population increasingly reliant on digital connectivity.
In crafting this bill, the creators have meticulously knitted together an intricate fabric of vibrant threads, each signifying a pillar of progress. To herald an era of unparalleled growth and dynamism, the bill looks beyond the scope of traditional telecommunication services, boldly embracing the convergence of digital mediums such as wire, radio, and optical fibers, aligning with the modalities of 21st-century communication. The bill’s very essence is innovation, etching a new paradigm through its provisions and signalling India's readiness to interface with the ever-expanding digital frontier.
The Defining Features
A novel and defining feature of this bill is its departure from a rigid licensing regime. It forges ahead with 'authorizations'—a signifier that resonates with flexibility, adaptability, and a regulatory approach that isn't mired in bureaucratic inertia but is rather an enabler of swift technological adoption and market responsiveness. This transformative philosophy signifies a departure from the byzantine processes of yore, orbiting instead toward an agile governance model that is both responsive to current needs and anticipative of future trends.
The introduction of mandatory biometric authentication for telecom customers articulates an unyielding stance against the rampant misuse of communication networks. Indeed, this measure draws a fine line between the right to privacy and the exigencies of data protection, posing ethical questions that animate public discourse. This balance seeks to thwart unsolicited commercial communication, exemplifying the state's vigil on the sanctuaries of personal space and tranquility.
In addition, the forward-looking bill tactically addresses the strategic use of spectrum resources with an undercurrent of prescience. By granting ‘spectrum assets’ legislative stature through the National Frequency Allocation Plan and enabling operators to adapt through 'refarming', the bill forms a visionary blueprint for resource optimization. It inherently recognizes that bandwidth is not simply a commercial commodity but one that serves the wider canvas of national imperatives, connectivity goals, and developmental aspirations.
Further embodying the dual themes of openness and vigilance, the bill incorporates provisions for interception and the implementation of a 'trusted sources' regime, a tacit acknowledgement of the cybersecurity challenges that loom on the horizon amidst increasing geopolitical strains. These measures exemplify the act of walking a tightrope between the democratic ideals of transparency and the unyielding requirements of state security.
Looking to the skies, the bill embraces satellite technologies, foreseeing their potential in unshackling the remote and marginalized areas from the constraints of terrestrial infrastructure and thus forging a digitally inclusive society. Acknowledging the expanse of the Indian subcontinent, the bill paves the way for an interconnected, digital hinterland via thoughtful satellite spectrum allocations.
Emphasizing the human thread in the digital weave, the reformulation of the Universal Service Obligation Fund into 'Digital Bharat Nidhi' underscores an unwavering commitment to reaching the unreached. It's the crystallization of a promise that every Indian, regardless of geographical and socio-economic divides, will be privy to the lenses of opportunity presented by the digital revolution.
The Watershed Moment
The introduction of the Telecommunications Bill of 2023 is a watershed moment, a convergence where history and opportunity coalesce, propelling a nation forward with the ambitions of a burgeoning superpower replacing the Indian Telegraph Act (1885), the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1933), and the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act (1950). It carries within its articles and clauses the anticipation of a billion dreams, the catalyst to a regulatory environment that nurtures innovation, equality, and a forward leap into the future.
Conclusion
Through its comprehensive scope and visionary approach, the bill writes a fresh chapter in India's digital saga. It is an unfolding story, pregnant with the possibilities of a nascent digital age, charting a trajectory for an India poised to define its own digital dome of the sky, under which its citizens will thrive for generations to come. With every legislative step, India crafts its legacy, a narrative of evolution, a tableau that reflects the aspirations of its people and their resolve to embrace the force of technology for the collective good. As this bill advances through the legislative labyrinth, it carries the spirit of a digital renaissance nestled in the heart of the world's largest democracy.
