US Activist Warns Australia's Online Safety Bill is 'Totalitarian'

Outspoken U.S. free speech activist Michael Shellenberger has strongly criticized Australia's proposed Online Safety Act reforms, known as the Digital Duty of Care Bill, asserting that they amount to 'sweeping censorship' and could restrict Australians' access to news about significant events.

Shellenberger, a commentator and journalist, stated in a video shared by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott that the legislation grants the government excessive powers, including the ability to operate an unlimited number of fake accounts for propaganda. He argued that this approach reverses the historical progression of Western civilization, which he believes has focused on limiting state power and expanding individual liberties.

The bill, introduced by Communications Minister Anika Wells, aims to place the onus on digital service providers to create a secure online environment for users. Companies like Meta and X could face fines of up to $100 million if found not to be proactively reducing users' exposure to harmful content. The legislation identifies 'foreseeable harms' for underage users as including bullying, pornography, misogynistic content, and accounts promoting eating disorders, while for adults, harms encompass violence, threats, and criminality.

Shellenberger, who is currently on a speaking tour in Australia, described the bill as 'totalitarian.' He recounted a meeting with two unnamed government officials who he claims were unaware the bill could allow the government to run fake accounts to target political opponents. According to Shellenberger, the officials cited concerns about preventing the broadcast of events like the planned execution of Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan, fearing copycat attacks. Shellenberger countered that this logic could also lead to the censorship of events like the Bondi Beach attack.

An earlier version of the bill empowered the communications minister to define 'serious harm,' but this faced opposition from the Coalition and the Greens. The power has since been shifted to parliament to determine what constitutes harmful content.

Shellenberger also suggested the bill's design is intended to curb the influence of parties like One Nation and warned that its powers could be used against political opponents and ordinary citizens who criticize the government. He asserted that such laws are incompatible with freedom and democracy, stating that the ability to freely share and receive information is fundamental.

Communications Minister Anika Wells defended the legislation, emphasizing Australia's right as a sovereign nation to protect its children from known online harms. She recounted a distressing case of a 14-year-old girl in Western Australia who was groomed and blackmailed online, leading to her self-harm and suicide. Wells stated the laws are for those who choose to abide by them on Australian shores.