While there is a need to address false or misleading digital content which may cause harm, the Law Council is concerned that the practical effect of the regulation proposed by the Exposure Draft is a disproportionate response to the risk, in recognition that the Draft Bill is broad and imprecise in its terminology, may result in confusion in its application, and is likely to impact on the freedom. [. ] The definitions of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ are fundamental to the operation of the Draft Bill, particularly in the face of the suggestion in the Fact Sheet accompanying the Bill that industry ‘does not need to adopt definitions in the Bill’. [. ] In a specific sense, the scope of almost all obligations under the Draft Bill and the concomitant scope of ACMA’s powers are hinged upon the concepts of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’.60 In a more general sense, those concepts define the scope of the ‘mischief’ that the statute purports/aims to remedy, and thus will inform the interpretation of every provision of the Draft Bill. [. ] So the focus is on the harm and the content rather than the intent or the source of the content.69 68. [. ] Under proposed section 7(3) of the Draft Bill, the factors that should be considered to determine whether the content is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to ‘serious harm’ include: (a) the circumstances of dissemination; (b) the subject matter of the content; (c) the potential reach and speed of dissemination; (d) the severity of the potential impacts; (e) the author of and purpose for the.
Pages 23 Published in Australia