Censorship Industrial Complex
Australia’s Misinformation Bill Is Dead…for Now
From the Brownstone Institute
The Australian government’s attempt to ram through legislation to combat misinformation online has been blocked after the Greens party announced it would not support the controversial bill.
“We are concerned this bill doesn’t actually do what it needs to do when it comes to stopping the deliberate mass distribution of false and harmful information,” said Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
This unexpected move is said to be the final nail in the coffin for the bill that intended to grant the media watchdog unprecedented regulatory powers to oversee digital content and determine what is ‘misinformation.’
A Domino Effect
During this week, an interesting display of parliamentary dynamics unfolded as an array of Senators announced they would oppose the bill, one by one.
Senators Lidia Thorpe, Tammy Tyrell, David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie, Gerard Rennick, Fatima Payman, and others declared their opposition.
Their reasons varied from concerns over government overreach, and vague definitions of misinformation, to the implications for political discourse and the potential for misuse. Each statement chipped away at the bill’s support, creating a domino effect.
An urgent call to action resulted in significant public outcry. Australians, concerned about their digital rights, flooded senators with emails, petitions, and social media campaigns.
The sheer volume of these communications likely played a crucial role in shaping the Senators’ views.
The vigorous debate also garnered international attention.
Michael Shellenberger, an American author and free speech campaigner, visited Australia to warn that these “totalitarian” laws would have implications for democracy, and blur the line between regulating harmful content and stifling dissent.
Nov 20, 2024 – Michael Shellenberger on Sky News Australia
According to Shellenberger, misinformation should be countered with more and better information, not through suppression or censorship.
Elon Musk, whose influence in the digital sphere is undeniable, especially after taking the helm of X, expressed similar views, and has been vocal about his disdain for what he perceives as “overreach” in digital governance, labelling the failed bill as “fascist.”
Digital ID for Under 16s
It has not quelled the government’s enthusiasm for its proposed ban of social media access for individuals under 16. This bill, which introduces a mandatory age verification process, has implications for digital identity and privacy.
The rapid legislative push on Thursday only allowed a 24-hour window for public submissions, a move to fast-track the controversial legislation without due public scrutiny.
The bill would require all Australians to undergo identity verification to use social media, raising alarms about the collection and potential misuse of personal data. The process could involve gathering biometric data, posing a risk for data breaches or misuse.
Today, Musk described the legislation as a “backdoor way to control access to the internet,” which promises to punish platforms, including X, with steep fines if they allow children under age 16 to hold social media accounts.
The combination of these legislative proposals (the misinformation bill, and the digital ID for under-16s), paints a picture of a government intent on tightening control over what you can say and read online.
What Happens Now?
After this week’s news, the Labor government must now retreat and reassess.
It could decide to abandon the legislative approach altogether and focus on other means like public education campaigns or working with social media platforms on voluntary codes of practice. But this is unlikely.
The government will most probably go back to the drawing board, either to revise the bill with more stringent protections for free speech or to explore alternative, less direct methods of addressing misinformation, hoping to revive the bill in the new year.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
Business
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
From LifeSiteNews
By Robert Jones
Durov, who was detained in France in 2024, believes governments are seeking to dismantle personal freedoms.
Tucker Carlson has interviewed Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who remains under judicial restrictions in France nearly a year after a surprise arrest left him in solitary confinement for four days — without contact with his family, legal clarity, or access to his phone.
Durov, a Russian-born tech executive now based in Dubai, had arrived in Paris for a short tourist visit. Upon landing, he was arrested and accused of complicity in crimes committed by Telegram users — despite no evidence of personal wrongdoing and no prior contact from French authorities on the matter.
In the interview, Durov said Telegram has always complied with valid legal requests for IP addresses and other data, but that France never submitted any such requests — unlike other EU states.
Telegram has surpassed a billion users and over $500 million in profit without selling user data, and has notably refused to create government “backdoors” to its encryption. That refusal, Durov believes, may have triggered the incident.
READ: Arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov signals an increasing threat to digital freedom
French prosecutors issued public statements, an unusual move, at the time of his arrest, fueling speculation that the move was meant to send a message.
At present, Durov remains under “judicial supervision,” which limits his movement and business operations.
Carlson noted the irony of Durov’s situating by calling to mind that he was not arrested by Russian President Vladimir Putin but rather a Western democracy.
Former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev has said that Durov should have stayed in Russia, and that he was mistaken in thinking that he would not have to cooperate with foreign security services.
Durov told Carlson that mandates for encryption “backdoors” endanger all users, not just suspects. Once created, such tools inevitably become accessible to hackers, foreign agents, and hostile regimes.
“In the US,” he commented, “you have a process that allows the government to actually force any engineer in any tech company to implement a backdoor and not tell anyone about it.”
READ: Does anyone believe Emmanuel Macron’s claim that Pavel Durov’s arrest was not political?
Durov also pointed to a recent French bill — which was ultimately defeated in the National Assembly — that would have required platforms to break encryptions on demand. A similar EU proposal is now under discussion, he noted.
Despite the persecution, Durov remains committed to Telegram’s model. “We monetize in ways that are consistent with our values,” he told Carlson. “We monetized without violating privacy.”
There is no clear timeline for a resolution of Durov’s case, which has raised serious questions about digital privacy, online freedom, and the limits of compliance for tech companies in the 21st century.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill
From LifeSiteNews
Senator Kristopher Wells and other senators are ‘interested’ in reviving the controversial Online Harms Act legislation that was abandoned after the election call.
A recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
Kristopher Wells, appointed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last year as a senator from Alberta, made the comments about reviving an internet censorship bill recently in the Senate.
“In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offences,” he said of Bill C-63 that lapsed earlier this year after the federal election was called.
Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online.
While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.
The Online Harms Act would have in essence censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.
Wells said that “Bill C-63 did not come to a vote in the other place and in the dying days of the last Parliament the government signaled it would be prioritizing other aspects of the bill.”
“I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country no matter who it targets,” he said.
Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.
Before the April 28 election call, the Liberals were pushing Bill C-63.
Wells asked if the current Carney government remains “committed to tabling legislation that will amend the Criminal Code as proposed in the previous Bill C-63 and will it commit to working with interested senators and community stakeholders to make the changes needed to ensure this important legislation is passed?”
Seasoned Senator Marc Gold replied that he is not in “a position to speculate” on whether a new bill would be brought forward.
Before Bill C-63, a similar law, Bill C-36, lapsed in 2021 due to that year’s general election.
As noted by LifeSiteNews, Wells has in the past advocated for closing Christian schools that refuse to violate their religious principles by accepting so-called Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs and spearheaded so-called “conversion therapy bans.”
Other internet censorship bills that have become law have yet to be fully implemented.
Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that former Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, known for his radical climate views, will be the person in charge of implementing Bill C-11, a controversial bill passed in 2023 that aims to censor legal internet content in Canada.
Anti-Trump protests planned across the country on Saturday as LA violence continues
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
Carney’s Promise of Expediting Resource Projects Feels Like a Modern Version of the Wicked Stepmother from Disney’s Cinderella
