Australia has shown the way on free speech Has it thrown off its penchant for technocracy?

Progressive media outlets such as The Guardian, which would have been sheltered from the bill’s most severe provisions, were full-throated in their support for the legislation, dismissing opposition as a “scare campaign”. But the fractures within progressive circles proved to be the most intriguing development.

The bill’s trajectory exposes a deeper narrative about how contemporary progressive culture has inadvertently become a vehicle for speech control. While I believe the core global actors pushing speech control are centrist, contemporary Left-wing culture has provided an excellent Trojan horse, via its collectivist concerns about public health, identity politics, online bullying and environmental issues. These fears have been systematically leveraged to advance increasingly restrictive information management strategies. Despite our reputation as living among snakes, spiders and emus, Australians have long been a coddled and fragile bunch, tucked into cul-de-sac suburbs, afraid of both the sun and our own shadows. Our Covid response was so remarked upon for this reason. A brutalist contrast between self-image and stark reality.

Harnessing contemporary progressive culture to advance speech controls was effective not only in disarming the field of digital free-expression NGOs, but in many cases those same organisations provided platoons of digital mercenaries to scour the internet and weed out disinformation. Having spent nearly two decades working in digital free expression advocacy, I witnessed first-hand how government and philanthropic funding diverted organic digital free speech movements. towards policing what they define as “disinformation”.

Working on the Twitter Files with Matt Taibbi, I helped map the intricate networks behind this phenomenon. First Draft, a US/UK outfit, emerged as a key player. It coined the term “malinformation” and played a critical role in attempting to suppress the now-verified Hunter Biden laptop story, two months before the New York Post broke the story. It was all carried out under the guise of “anti-disinformation” work.

First Draft also assisted in developing the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation which the proposed legislation was based on and sought to strengthen by providing a “regulatory backstop” and was the only NGO involved in the Trusted News Initiative, a Covid-era legacy media consortium that was integral to pandemic narrative management. Its work illustrates that these are not organic responses to the challenges of a cacophonous internet — but a politicised strategy to shape the public debate.

Through the Australian Twitter files I revealed that, under the existing voluntary code, our security agencies were already flagging remarkably innocuous content to social media platforms. Jokes, political criticism, and accounts with minimal followings were targeted. They even attempted to censor respected academics such as former Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff for questioning lockdown efficacy and promoting the Great Barrington Declaration. Full-scale legislation would only make things worse.

And the bill’s provisions were breathtakingly broad. Companies could face fines of up to 5% of global revenue, and the bar was lowered to the point where content only needed to be “reasonably verifiable as false or misleading” to count as misinformation. “False” according to whom? Well, this would be the domain of faultless fact-checkers, their cheeks flushed with truthiness and here to rescue you from your misinformed self.

Among the justifications for the bill were the Southport Riots in Britain (triggered apparently by misinformation) and a recent stabbing in Sydney, where the perpetrator was misidentified most significantly by mainstream news, which, in a fabulous irony, is exempt from the bill. The cherry on the cake was the expansive definition of “harm” — encompassing potential damage to the environment, economy, and public health.

But, whisper it, the bill’s resounding defeat could signal that something profound is afoot. Could free speech values be experiencing an Australian revival? Though the Covid pandemic period saw unprecedented restrictions on public discourse, a growing number of people — including those traditionally supportive of such measures — are now loudly speaking out. Nick Coatsworth, a Deputy Chief Medical Officer during Covid and previously supportive of vaccine mandates, has emerged as a powerful critic. Coatsworth has seemingly been to Damascus and back, stating: “Misinformation causes harm. The weaponisation of misinformation as a term to shut down debate causes even greater harm. This bill does the latter.”

Similarly, legal experts, including the Human Rights Commissioner and constitutional law professors, provided crucial intellectual ammunition against the bill. The freedom movement that emerged from Covid managed to move the conventional Right into a more populist free-speech position and those moderate “expert” voices on the centre and centre-left gave permission to progressives to voice their concerns with less fear of being dogpiled.

That said, the failure also owes much to the incompetency of the current Labor government, who littered the bill with hypocrisies and excess largesse making it easier to shoot down. It should also be noted that the Greens’ rejection was a mixed bag – in part wanting legacy media to be included in government policing efforts, and in part a broader critique of Big Tech power.

But while celebrating this victory, realism is essential. Australia remains a fertile ground for technocratic control mechanisms with its penchant for technocracy and over-trust in government. Other restrictive legislation continues to advance, including proposed bans on social media for under-16s that would have serious impacts on adult users and expanding eSafety regulations.

Winning the free speech war requires building a broad, cross-political consensus. The defeat of this misinformation bill suggests such a thing might be emerging. The Left’s partial rejection of speech control narratives is especially significant, potentially creating a “permissions cascade” for other fearful progressive voices.

But the rejection of Australia’s counter-disinformation bill is more than a legislative outcome. It represents a potential inflection point in how democratic societies negotiate the challenging terrain of information control. The emerging alliance defending free expression suggests that the impulse to protect open dialogue might be more resilient than the forces seeking to constrain it.

After slavishly obeying perhaps the most absurd covid diktats of anywhere in the world, today Australia offers a sprig of hope. In a new political atmosphere, reasoned debate, cross-political collaboration, and a commitment to free expression can still prevail against increasingly sophisticated attempts to shut it down.