If the government is so concerned and animated about controlling the message and misinformation, why arenโt they starting with the one vehicle they already have the ability to rein in and for which they donโt need misinformation legislation?
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐. After all the ABC has a well-chronicled history of bias and misinformation, duplicity and dishonesty with its media consumers.
Six gun shots deliberately edited on to an audio track to twist and distort the facts, being the latest example.
Perhaps thatโs because the ABC and many in the journalist class are in fact activists and are already on the same page and therefore donโt require legislative coercion.
More broadly, why donโt they have a focus on the mainstream media overall. Why the focus on social media and Elon Musk in particular?
The truth is, it is not, and never has been about misinformation.
It is about controlling the narrative and not allowing the message to go rogue.
AND If the Teals are supporting the governmentโs misinformation bill, how about they lead by example and stop calling themselves โindependentsโ
The reason the Teals support the bill is because it doesnโt apply to them for the same reason. As part of the political class, it doesnโt apply to them.
For politicians, misinformation, misleading, spinning and distorting the facts is what they do.
There is no place, none, for any legislation like this particularly when what it seeks to achieve doesnโt apply to one particular class. Them!!!
I donโt know, but I strongly suspect that such discriminatory application of the law is probably unconstitutional on that basis alone.The definition of disinformation includes anything that causes serious harm.
That is ย โ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐จ๐ซ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌsโ.
This is a clear demonstration that it is purely political.
The subtext is: โ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฆ๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐, ๐จ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก, ๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ข๐ and reasonโ will be unlawful.