"...urging people to not get government approved vaccines" would be "deemed misinformation and disinformation under the laws"
According to Australian Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland
The Australian Government’s Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2024 appears to be setting up social media to be the censor of people’s public discussion on taxpayer-funded public health policy.
Similar action which threatens to stifle free speech is occurring simultaneously around the world, for example in the other Five Eyes countries - the US, the UK, New Zealand, and Canada.
Who is coordinating this scheme to interfere with public debate?
Purportedly the purpose of this control of free speech is to prevent harm.
For example, the Australian Mis/Disinformation Bill aims to prevent “harm to public health in Australia including the efficacy of preventative health measures”.
The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum states:
The potential for health-related misinformation and disinformation to undermine the right to the highest attainable standard of health has been firmly established since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Misinformation and disinformation that might have this effect could relate to how a disease is spread, the safety and effectiveness of vaccines or other preventive health measures, or health treatment options not supported by clinical data.
It is highly alarming that one of the aims of the Bill appears to be censoring concerns about “the safety and effectiveness of vaccines or other preventive health measures”.
According to an ABC report, Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland said for something to be deemed misinformation and disinformation under the laws, it would have to both be “seriously harmful and verifiably false”.
Michelle Rowland cites as an example “content urging people to not get government-approved vaccines”.
The clear implication here is that “government-approved vaccines” are beyond reproach.
Will the Mis/Disinformation Bill result in social media platforms censoring any discussion questioning the taxpayer-funded “government-approved vaccines”?
Ironically, such censorship of vaccination policy has been commonplace for years, as I know from personal experience.
This censoring of discussion on taxpayer-funded vaccination policy has resulted in the dire situation we are in now, with an ever-increasing ‘womb-to-tomb’ vaccination schedule imposed upon the population, including COVID-19 vaccine products being pressed upon the population under coercion and mandates.
The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum states:
Many studies have found that misinformation and disinformation of this nature can undermine public trust in expert guidance and government-led public health interventions, and consequently influence peoples’ behaviour in a way that negatively impacts public health outcomes.
It appears the aim of the Bill is to ensure there is no public questioning of “expert guidance and government-led public health interventions”.
While critical-thinking people will be under threat of censorship if they dare to question ‘experts’ and ‘government-led public health interventions’, it seems those pushing the government line will be ‘protected’ via Clause 16:
Clause 16 provides exemptions for: the dissemination of content that would reasonably be regarded as parody or satire; the dissemination of professional news content; and the reasonable dissemination of content for any academic, artistic, scientific or religious purpose.
So it seems the ‘professional news’ (aka government propaganda), and the academics and scientists pressing vaccine products upon the population will be protected via Clause 16 for pushing “the safety and effectiveness of vaccines”, while people in the community will be at risk of censorship for questioning “the safety and effectiveness of vaccines”.
In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, these so-called ‘preventative health measures’ have been imposed without authentic voluntary informed consent, with the medical profession conscripted to administer these products to people who were under duress to comply, people who were threatened with losing their livelihood and participation in society if they refused to submit to the injections.
This happened in the so-called ‘free country’ of Australia - the medical intervention of COVID-19 vaccination being mandated across the community, with little or no critical analysis provided by the ‘professional news’, academics or scientists.
It’s already happened…
And now it seems the Australian Government’s Mis/Disinformation Bill seeks to trap people into compliance with ongoing government ‘preventative health measures’ without question, e.g. the COVID-19 vaccine products which have been imposed under coercion and mandates.
Who drafted this terrible Bill which plans to censor the people’s open discussion of public health policy?
Really, you could not make up how bad this is…
And who might end up stuck on.the end of their own mis-dis-information sword, the so called laws?? The biggest most prolific spreaders of misinformation and disinformation are ---- politicians and the so called government actors who made the 'law'. Hint. Where is the virus, and where is the safety and effective evidence?
It is very bad because what will the next step be from the government deeming discussion re refusal of vaccines misinformation and disinformation? There will be a next step because people will resist this draconian law and the government will creep forward with its authoritarian stance. The only step can be there not being a choice, it is leading to destruction of personal autonomy completely and it will not stop at vaccines.