The Greens have belled the cat on Labor’s political censorship bill, openly confirming the new laws can and should be used to stop political views with which they disagree being amplified online.
Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety, Sarah Henderson, said the comments exposed exactly why Labor’s Digital Duty of Care Bill was so dangerous.
“The Greens have said the quiet part out loud,” Senator Henderson said.
“They want these laws used to decide which political views Australians should and should not see online.
“That confirms our worst fears about Labor’s bill. What is being sold as a measure to protect children is a Trojan horse for controlling lawful speech, political debate and the news Australians see online.
“Australians want their children protected online and they want the world’s biggest technology companies held to account.
“But protecting children is not an excuse to hand politicians sweeping powers over lawful speech, news and political debate.”
At a press conference at Parliament House yesterday, Greens Digital Rights spokesperson Senator David Shoebridge argued the Digital Duty of Care should stop certain political messages from being amplified, specifically citing Pauline Hanson and the Coalition:
“There’s a lot of discussion about a whack-a-mole approach to content on digital duty of care but I think that misunderstands what the core parts of a digital duty of care are. It’s about good system design. It’s about having an algorithm that doesn’t actually promote and generate hate. And every time you get Pauline Hanson come out and say well actually she wants to promote hateful messages against First Nations peoples or you get the Coalition coming out and saying that they want to promote genocide denial, I think it points out we need digital duty of care so that those messages aren’t amplified and they don’t become the content that kids are digesting when they flip open their phone and wonder what’s happening in the world.”
The Coalition does not support genocide denial. Senator Shoebridge’s claim that we do is a disgraceful smear, and it shows exactly the danger of giving politicians power to decide which political views should be suppressed online.
Senator Henderson said the intervention should alarm Australians across the political spectrum.
“It is deeply concerning that the Greens are talking about these laws as a way to suppress political views they oppose,” Senator Henderson said.
“Today it might be a view the Greens dislike. Tomorrow it could be yours.
“Many of the most serious online harms are already prohibited under criminal law or regulated under the Online Safety Act, including child sexual exploitation material, terrorist and extreme violent material, cyber-abuse, cyberbullying and non-consensual intimate images.
“Yet Labor’s exposure draft goes much further.
“It gives the government extraordinary scope to determine new categories of online harm, while capturing a huge range of online services including news websites and podcasts.
“This should alarm every Australian who values a free press and free political debate.
“Some categories of ‘serious harm’ and ‘harm to children’ are dangerously vague, including material said to encourage or promote hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality.
“What does that mean in practice?
“Could Australians be caught for criticising gender quotas, arguing that sex is biological, opposing government gender policy or expressing a religious view?
“These are legitimate political, social and cultural debates. They are not crimes.
“The inevitable danger is censorship by fear. Faced with enormous regulatory risk, platforms and publishers will censor first and ask questions later.
“Controversial views will be suppressed and political debate will be chilled.
“Labor should withdraw this bill as it stands and start again.”
|
|