Why is Business Council against Morrison govt’s anti-trolling bill?

Highlights 

• The Morrison Government’s anti-trolling bill, which aims to protect Australians from social media trolling, faces stiff opposition from the Business Council of Australia.
• The bill negates the decision of the High Court in Dylan Voller’s defamation case, which held that media companies were liable as publishers of comments made by other users on their social media posts.
• It remains to be seen whether the coalition government succeeds in implementing the bill in the country.

The Business Council of Australia has slammed the Morrison Government’s anti-trolling bill, contending that the bill can breach the US free trade agreement (FTA) and increase instances of online abuse.

The proposed anti-trolling bill released in early December has become a bone of contention as few provisions in the bill are considered to be against fair trade practices.

Other arguments against the proposed bill include the disproportionate impact on low-income households, misuse of data by social media companies, including contact details of the users, limited accessibility for younger Australians, and that the commonwealth lacks the constitutional power to legislate defamation.

The bill, which has garnered widespread criticism by a few sections in Australia, was tabled in the parliament last month. 

What is the government’s stand on this issue?

The government has claimed that the Bill could help victims subjected to trolling by asking social media companies to put in place complaints-handling procedures that could help identify the identities of anonymous commenters.

Why this controversy?

The Morrison government’s anti-trolling bill aims to help the victims of online abuse by creating better pathways to complain about defamation and identification of anonymous commenters.

However, a few believe that the biggest beneficiaries are media companies and other operators of social media pages, including community groups and businesses.

In a submission to a Senate inquiry, the BCA has argued that the bill should not proceed as it would have a “limited impact on safety outcomes” while leading to “substantial changes” in the defamation law.

Read More: QBE Insurance (ASX:QBE) to sell its Westwood business for US$375M

Origin of the bill:

The bill negates the decision of the High Court in Dylan Voller’s defamation case, which held that media companies were liable as publishers of comments made by other users on their social media posts.

Later, the government observed that this could have a “chilling effect on the right to free speech”. The paper on changes also expressed apprehension that the court decision could see Australians and businesses with ordinary social media pages held liable.

The bill also talked about the instances where a complainant did not know about a commenter’s location. In such a case, the absence of their identity or contact details prevented them from initiating a defamation case against them.

How can the bill fix this issue?

The proposed bill deals with the liability issue by stating that an Australian person who maintains or administers a social media service page is not considered as the publisher of a 3^rd party comment on his page. It added that if a comment is posted on a page of a social media service (and the comment is made in Australia), the social media service provider is deemed the publisher of the comment.

Besides, to deal with anonymous trolling, the bill provides social media companies with a defence mechanism in defamation by asking them to have a complaints procedure to help find out the commenters that fulfil specific requirements.

The bill empowers users to unmask anonymous commenters who post defamatory material in two ways – through a complaints mechanism and through an ‘end-user information disclosure order’ from a court.

A part of the bill states: “While social media posts can be made anywhere in the world, it is appropriate that Australian law focuses on harms connected with Australia.” Noticeably, the bill only affects social media service providers’ status as a publisher concerning comments made in Australia. On the other hand, the protection afforded to page owners in Australia will apply regardless of where the comment was made.

Image Source: © Arturszczybylo | Megapixl.com

Which social media companies will fall under the ambit of this law?

The bill includes a provision that says that if the provider of a social media service is a foreign body corporate and the service has at least 250,000 Australian account holders, the social media service provider is required to have a nominated entity in Australia. 

Nevertheless, the penalty that any violation of the Bill would attract is still not clearly mentioned in the draft.

 The bill allows the Attorney General (AG) to interfere if the complainant initiates a defamation case against the social media company; or when an end-user information disclosure order is sought.

Has can the government ensure that the law won’t be misused?

Social media companies can act if the defamation claim appears genuine to prevent any misuse of the system. However, what constitutes a genuine claim is still not appropriately defined.

Besides, courts are allowed to dismiss an end-user disclosure order when “disclosure is likely to pose a risk to the commenter’s safety”.

Bottom Line:

Anonymity is a lawful characteristic of the digital ecosystem; however, it can be abused to disrepute someone. As such, the bill holds relevance in the current digital age. However, there is always scope for improvement; the government can thus bring amendments to the bill as it desires fit for the greater good of its citizens.