In this interview, Professor Michael Shellenberger appeared on 4BC Mornings to discuss the IPA’s research on misinformation and disinformation laws.
All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research.
Below is a transcript of the interview.
Bill McDonald:
And I’m going to talk about this now, because as I mentioned to you just prior to the news bulletin, it’s been a big topic for a few weeks now. Aussies punch above their weight. We know that. There’s no doubt we could compete globally better than we should for a nation of our size, but the same could be said for our efforts in virtue signalling, I reckon, in recent years. So are we leading the world and desperately trying to show the world we’re doing the right thing? One person who thinks we are is Professor Michael Schellenberger, the chair of politics, censorship and free speech at the University of Austin, Texas. Mr. Schellenberger says Australians’ misinformation and disinformation, what we call the MAD legislation, you can take that any way you like, is terrifying, and says he’s never seen anything like it. And Michael’s visiting Australia this week. He joins us on 4BC Mornings. Great to have your company. Thank you, Michael.
Michael Schellenberger:
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Bill McDonald:
So this revised MAD as we are calling it, the MAD bill, it’s intended to censor opinions, claims, commentary, invective, anything expressed on social media anywhere in the world. Clause three specifically provides for extraterritorial operation to censor content outside of Australia so long as the content is provided to end users in Australia. It’s pretty wordy, pretty comprehensive, it’s pretty over the top. This is why you’ve put Australian censorship ahead of any other on the planet. What are your fears? What do you make of it?
Michael Schellenberger:
Well, it’s an alarming bill. I mean, I’m here because I’m concerned about its impact on us Americans. I mean, this is a bill that would require censorship of the content at a global level. It’s really quite mad, and I think kind of obnoxious as well to push this globally. But I also love Australia. I mean, it’s my third visit here. I love the Australian people. We have so much in common. We all love our freedom. And it’s a very concerning bill. It’s also part of a global effort with legislation that’s eerily similar in other countries. It’s like a Black Mirror episode where they’re trying to censor the entire global internet, and on the most ludicrous claims. I mean, they want to censor things that are misleading. Well, anything can be misleading. I mean, that’s the idea that something can be accurate, but they say, “Oh, but people might get the wrong idea.” That’s absurd, that would allow the prime minister and the communications minister to censor whatever they wanted. It would also allow people to censor so-called vilification.
Well, anybody who’s been criticised, and if you’re somewhat thin-skinned, you might say, “Oh, I’ve been vilified.” I think it’s important to remember that Australia already has very strict laws against fraud. You’re not allowed to lie or to steal someone’s money. Australia has much stricter laws than we have against defamation. You’re not allowed to deliberately lie to ruin somebody’s job prospects or career reputation. And we already have laws against child exploitation, against all manner of things. You don’t need this legislation. We have a wonderful way already to counter misinformation and that’s called freedom of speech, it’s called publishing accurate information, as a journalist, this is what I do every day. We publish articles that correct misinformation out there. The idea that somebody would want to correct misinformation through censorship is anathema to what it means to be a free full human being living in a free society. So I’m hopeful this legislation will die and then somebody needs to figure out how they got so close to passing something that’s so completely totalitarian.
Bill McDonald:
What do you think has happened here? Because that’s been pretty much the view of most people that have looked at what’s proposed. How did we get to this space? Are they panicked? Jumping at shadows? Is it a complete overreaction? How did we get here?
Michael Schellenberger:
Well, the folks that brought me out, the Institute for Public Affairs, IPA, has done this incredible analysis of how we got here. We look at it globally, there has been a strong reaction against Donald Trump, there was a strong reaction against Brexit in Britain, you could call it counter populism, and there was this idea that Brexit passed and Donald Trump was elected because of misinformation.
You look at it, and it’s not very accurate. It’s not like Donald Trump was the first time a politician ever stretched the truth. Every politician in a competition thinks that the other guy is lying. That’s what politics is. But what we’ve seen that’s so scary is we’ve seen government agencies working with often government-funded NGOs, working with the mainstream established news media to demand censorship of legal information, of legal opinionated information. We think it’s part of a broader fear that’s emerged in the intelligence community and the foreign policy establishment against populism. It’s clear they felt that they were able to control the media since World War II until around 2016, and they want that power back. They want the power to control the limits of the conversation in every western country.
So that’s why we see this in Europe and Britain and Canada and the United States. So this is a global effort, very similar, eerily similar in every country with supposed fact-checking groups often associated with mainstream news media companies, government agencies, including ones involved in intelligence and security, and then lawmakers trying to pass legislation. I think it’s a kind of panic against populism, which whatever you think of populism, it’s a movement of people. It’s a democratic movement. If you don’t like it, then argue against it. Don’t try to censor it.
Bill McDonald:
So essentially, the changes would allow government to weaponize political opponents’ views.
Michael Schellenberger:
Well, that’s right. It sounds… People say this a lot, it sounds cliche, but it’s absolutely true. If the Labour Party government puts this legislation in place, they should absolutely expect that a future liberal government or some other government could use it against them. We’ve seen this already in the United States. The left has wanted to censor people, it’s been mostly coming from them censoring Trump supporters, but then we see the right once to censor pro-Hamas or pro-Palestinian voices. I think it’s a juvenile reaction to things you don’t like. It’s an extension of cancel culture where we’ve seen rising intolerance in the society for different points of view.
The reason is… First of all, hatred is a human emotion. And you should not censor people’s emotions. Allow people to express their strong negative emotions, and then we make an argument back. We say it’s better to have a quality of all people, better to not have discrimination. If you censor that debate, if you censor that conversation and we don’t learn how to live together, we don’t learn how to have a democracy, democracy depends on freedom of speech, scientific progress depends on freedom of speech, our whole civilization, it’s the first freedom. It’s the freedom upon which all other freedoms depend. If we lose our freedom of speech, then we’re going to lose our democracy, we’re going to lose our scientific progress and we’re going to lose our civilization.
Bill McDonald:
The Albanese government went for Elon Musk and X earlier this year. They tried to globally censor a video showing a brutal stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in Sydney. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that. Our PM called Musk an arrogant billionaire and said he thinks he’s above the law, but also above common decency. Musk won that battle. How was that a win for free speech?
Michael Schellenberger:
Well, bad things happen in the world. I’m a father of two kids. I think we didn’t do a good enough job protecting our kids from a lot of the things that they see, but the world is full of violence. There are wars, there are genocides, there is human suffering. That’s always been the case. That’s a harsh reality that you learn as you grow up. We should not be allowing governments to censor the brutal realities of human life. Now, there’s a reasonable debate around restrictions on content for children. We have existing protections of privacy. People can’t violate your privacy and put it online. They can’t defame you. These laws are very strict already. But when you have episodes of violence like that, as the Australian court ruled, correctly in my opinion, it is not the government’s business to censor a private media company from sharing that information.
Bill McDonald:
This MAD bill was really rushed through the Lower House in Parliament the day after the Melbourne Cup, the biggest horse race in this country. The government hopes to have it passed in time for Christmas. There seems there’s urgent rush on now, or at least by the next federal election. The Senate stands in the way. They’re scheduled to vote on the bill this coming Monday. You’ve been in contact with some Senate reps. How do you see this progressing at the moment?
Michael Schellenberger:
Well, the senators are very alarmed by this. And as you all know, you have this crossbench of unaffiliated senators from smaller parties or independent senators, they have all come out against the legislation. And my understanding is that’s pretty rare for the entire crossbench to oppose a piece of legislation like that. It’s very similar to what we saw happen in Ireland. The government pushed a censorship legislation and it was opposed at first just by the political right, but over time, you saw Sinn Fein, the former political… The political party for the IRA, a left-wing organisation, came out against it. It’s sad for me because I used to be on the left, even on the radical left as a young man, but we always supported freedom of speech. If you go all the way back to the 18th century when the French Parliament divided between liberals and conservatives and that became left and right, it’s been the left, it’s been the liberals that have argued for freedom of speech.
And so for me to see the left embrace censorship, it’s a sad, sad day. I think it’s a stain on the political left organisation, the political left-wing parties around the world, and we’ve seen it in the United States. We’ve seen the Democrats cede free speech to Republicans. That’s why you saw Elon Musk supporting Donald Trump. That’s why you saw Tulsi Gabbard. Robert F. Kennedy Jr is one of the most censored individuals in the United States. Those of us that run… But we can’t understand what happened. It’s like the invasion of the brain snatchers. Somebody has… The left got themselves on the wrong side of the free speech issue, and it’s going to go down, in my view, as one of the greatest political mistakes of the 21st century.
Bill McDonald:
I’d agree with you there. Finally, can I ask you, former liberal and One Nation representative here has called for the next election to be fought on free speech and call for a referendum to insert into the Constitution a US-style First Amendment to protect freedom of speech. Is that a good idea for Australia?
Michael Schellenberger:
Well, look, I’m not Australian, obviously. I’m an American, so I would never say what you should do here. What I will say is having travelled around the world now and made the case against censorship, I’ve really come to appreciate the First Amendment. It is so strong. It’s so clear. It hasn’t stopped us from enforcing laws against fraud or defamation or preventing child exploitation. We still do those things. We do them very well. But the First Amendment makes clear that that free speech is essential to protecting every other speech… Every other freedom. It’s essential to protecting democracy, scientific progress, technological progress, civilization itself. The Institute for Public Affairs has really laid out an excellent case. I encourage people to go to the website. They will weigh in on this question of whether Australia should have its own First Amendment, but I will say that whether it’s a First Amendment or as a referendum or however it gets done, I do think holding the line strongly on protecting free speech as an essential foundation or a pillar of civilization is absolutely essential.
Once you start getting into the thing of, oh, we’re going to have the government decide what means can be allowed, or they shouldn’t allow satire, I mean, this legislation they’re proposing would allow the government to censor satire. I mean, think of Swift’s A Modest Proposal. Think of parody comedy. I mean, it’s really… It’s totalitarianism. We forget totalitarianism is humourless. It’s ruled by some of the most petty bureaucrats in government, and you don’t want that here. Australians are a really proud, free people, whatever it takes to ensure that free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, and it’s carried very strong in the culture, because of course, it’s just a piece of paper. If the people don’t believe in the First Amendment, then we won’t have free speech. It’s got to be an essential part of Australian culture.
Bill McDonald:
Really appreciate your time and your insights, Professor Michael Schellenberger. Thank you.
Michael Schellenberger:
Thanks for having me.
Bill McDonald:
133882 is the open line number. It is 10 minutes to…
This transcript with Professor Michael Shellenberger talking on 4BC 21 November 2024 has been edited for clarity.
