They're Coming for Your Opinions!
They're Coming for Your Opinions!
Nation First looks into the dangerous reality behind Australia's Misinformation Bill.
Dear friend,
They don’t just want to control what you say—they want to decide what you’re allowed to think.
The Australian Government’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is a direct attack on your ability to speak your mind. They’re not just targeting lies or deliberate falsehoods here. No. They’re coming for opinions—your opinions and my opinions. If you’ve got something to say that goes against their approved narrative, they want the power to shut you down.
The Australian Government’s proposed bill targets opinions, not just falsehoods, labeling them as misinformation if deemed harmful.
The bill broadly defines “misinformation”, including opinions, claims, and commentary, giving bureaucrats the power to suppress views they dislike.
Expert opinions will determine what qualifies as misinformation, creating a biased and one-sided enforcement system that silences dissent.
The bill considers who the “author of the information” is when determining if something is misinformation making it possible to target individuals based on who they are, not just what they say.
This legislation is about controlling speech and suppressing political opposition, threatening free speech and democracy itself.
Sign the petition against it at www.SaveFreeSpeech.com.au and scroll to the very bottom of this email to find out what other action you can take.
As I said, the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill doesn’t just target falsehoods; it gives the government the power to silence any opinion that goes against their approved narrative. How? Let me show you. The bill defines “misinformation” as any “information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading, or deceptive.” Some people may think that this is fine—if information is false, then it shouldn’t be being bandied about the internet. But the question is, what constitutes “information” in the eyes of the government?
The answer to that question is found in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. An explanatory memorandum is the guide behind a parliamentary bill, detailing what it truly aims to achieve, why it’s being pushed, and how it plans to operate if it becomes law. This document reveals the intentions, impacts, and mechanisms of a proposed law—stripping away complex legal jargon to expose its real purpose. It serves as the roadmap for the courts, and ultimately, for anyone trying to grasp the full force and implications of what the bill intends to bring down on society.
In the case of the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, the explanatory memorandum explicitly states that “information” includes “opinions, claims, commentary, and invective”. Yes, you read that right. They want to decide what opinions are “false.” Who gets to make that call? The government and their hand-picked bureaucrats, that’s who. And if they think your opinion could “reasonably cause or contribute to serious harm,” then watch out—you’re on their radar.
I just want to pause for a second to underscore how ridiculous this all is. Let’s turn to the Google English Dictionary which is actually provided by Oxford Languages, the publishers of the world-famous Oxford Dictionary that’s held up to be the ultimate in the definition of words and terms just about the world over.
Opinion, according to this dictionary, is defined as “a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” If that is the case, how on Earth can an opinion be either true or false? If it isn’t necessarily based on facts or knowledge, it simply just is!
Moving on to commentary, this dictionary defines the term to mean “an expression of opinions or offering of explanations about an event or situation.” Once again, how the expression of formed views/judgments not necessarily based on fact/knowledge be true or false?
Strangely enough, Google doesn’t have a definition for invective but the American Merriam-Webster Dictionary does: “insulting or abusive language.” So does calling the Prime Minister an idiot become misinformation? I’d challenge that in a court of law!
What does this mean for you and me? Think about it. They’re saying your opinion, your commentary, and quite possibly your insults to politicians (invective)—in fact, anything they don’t like—can be called harmful misinformation if it contradicts their agenda. Have you ever shared a view that wasn’t popular or challenged the status quo? Well, under this bill, that could be enough for them to go after you and have your opinion scrubbed from the internet.
But wait, it gets worse. The explanatory memorandum goes on to state that “expert opinions or advice” will be used to determine whether content is “reasonably verifiable as false.” Let’s be honest—the so-called “experts” often get it wrong. Need I point to the example of “safe and effective”? So you might have a completely valid opinion, but if it clashes with the view of an “expert,” it could be labelled as dangerous misinformation. Imagine questioning the government’s economic policy or their latest health directives. All it would take is one “expert” on their payroll to disagree, and suddenly you’re a threat.
Also, the “experts” often disagree. When a journalist recently put the hoary old line to Robert F. Kennedy Jr that he wasn’t an expert, and so couldn’t have a valid opinion on vaccines, he reminded her that he was a lawyer and part of his job was to get expert witnesses to testify in court on behalf of his clients. He added that the lawyers he went up against also got expert witnesses on behalf of their clients who said the complete opposite of his expert witnesses. Given this, which experts get their opinions to become law? In the case of the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, the government does.
We’ve seen this before, haven’t we? You and I know how this plays out. We’ve seen fact-checkers and gatekeepers twist facts by running to one “expert” to label another perspective as false. This is no accident—it’s a feature, not a bug. Now, they want to take that biased system, enshrine it in law, and give it teeth. Don’t think for a second that this power won’t be abused.
And it gets even more chilling. Do you know what else the bill gets the government to consider when it’s determining what is and isn’t misinformation? Would you believe the “author of the information?” That means you and I can be targeted based on who we are, not just what we say. The same statement from different people could be treated differently. If you have a certain political leaning or a history of dissent, guess what? They can come after you. This is a blueprint for biased enforcement.
Ask yourself this: Why would they need to know who the author is if it’s all about protecting people from harm? The answer is simple. It’s about control. It’s about silencing the voices they don’t like.
This isn’t about stopping lies; it’s about suppression. Freedom of expression, even when it’s uncomfortable or controversial, is what makes democracy work. When the government takes it upon itself to decide which opinions are “acceptable,” we all lose. And you know as well as I do—they won’t stop with one opinion or one person. Today it might be your neighbour; tomorrow it might be you or me.
That’s why we need to fight this anti-free speech bill together. You and I can’t sit back and watch while free speech is destroyed under the guise of “protecting” people. We must expose this legislation for what it really is: a tool for silencing dissent and crushing political opposition.
So here’s what you can do:
1. Either email or, preferably, phone the offices of the key crossbench Senators whose vote will determine whether or not the bill passes the Senate. These Senators include David Van, Jacqui Lambie, Lidia Thorpe, Fatima Paymment, David Pocock, and Tammy Tyrrell. Out of these six, Senators Pocock and Tyrrell have publicly declared they will oppose the bill (albeit Senator Pocock has said he will oppose it if there are no major changes made to it).
Nonetheless, we need to keep the pressure on all of these Senators so they vote the right way. If you’re going to contact the offices of these Senators, then I strongly appeal to you to be POLITE. I have seen before how abuse and rudeness can turn prospective political heroes into absolute zeroes, and we just simply can’t afford to have any more zeroes on this issue.
Whether you’re emailing or phoning, all you really need to say is that you just want the Senator to know that you’re opposed to the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill because of its negative impact on free speech, and you want them to vote against it when it comes to a vote in the Senate.
If you’re contacting Senators Pocock or Tyrrell, thank them for the stand they’ve taken and tell them that you’re looking forward to them being part of the effort that defeats the bill. What’s even better is if you live in a State that any one of these six Senators represents. If that’s the case make sure you say so. Here’s the list of Senators, their email address and phone numbers, broken down by State.
Victoria:
Senator David Van
Email: senator.van@aph.gov.au
Phone: (03) 9008 4688
Senator Lidia Thorpe
Email: senator.thorpe@aph.gov.au
Phone: (03) 9070 1950
Western Australia:
Senator Fatima Payman
Email: senator.payman@aph.gov.au
Phone: (08) 9228 3277
Tasmania:
Senator Jacqui Lambie
Email: senator.lambie@aph.gov.au
Phone: (03) 6424 5244
Senator Tammy Tyrrell
Email: senator.tyrrell@aph.gov.au
Phone: (03) 6424 5244
Australian Capital Territory:
Senator David Pocock
Email: senator.pocock@aph.gov.au
Phone: (02) 6247 6444
2. Along with this direct contact with the key Senators, there are a number of targeted petitions you need to sign:
Of course, the first I’m going to promote is my own via CitizenGO which you can find at www.SaveFreeSpeech.com.au
Then there’s the Aligned Council of Australia’s petition at www.MADMustGO.com.au
Monica Smit and Reignite Democracy Australia are running a petition at www.StopCensorship.com.au
Family Voice Australia have a petition at https://familyvoice.org.au/campaigns/tell-key-senators-to-stop-misinformation-bill
As well, the Australian Christian Lobby have a tool you can use to email key Senators at https://www.acl.org.au/campaigns/the-misinformation-bill-is-back/
You should fill in every one of these petitions and others if you’re aware of them. While you’re at it, you can share this email and the video below with as many people as you know.
I’m urging you to join me, speak out, share this truth, and hold our Senators accountable. Free speech is worth fighting for because once it’s gone, it’s going to be nearly impossible to get it back.
Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.
Take care,
George Christensen
George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.
George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:
“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”
— George Christensen.
Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.
Point being overlooked is about the "advisers "on this Bill. Who or what faceless ones sneakily created this piece of tyranny This must have been done by group effort seemingly without recourse to public or others for input or consultation proving how much out of touch they are with real people preferably mixing with academics or law followers only This twisted of thinking is drawing our country downwards & must stop Senators & independents like Pocock surprising by bringing matters to head for good of all not a select few
This is how it all works.
'a 64-year-old pensioner retweeted a meme of Green Economy Minister Robert Habeck, in which Habeck was described as an “idiot,” Bavarian police raided the man’s house and arrested him. The crime has even been recorded as a “politically motivated right-wing crime.”
"The Bamberg prosecutor’s office indicates that this constitutes a federal criminal offense of “hatred'
We all thought they learned their lesson after the shellacking in WWII. But Communism never died when the wall came down. It went 'Watermelon' Green on the outside, Red on the inside'.