Online freedoms are under threat — and Western Australia is leading the way
By Gerard Mazza
Pieces like this one are free to read, please consider becoming a paid subscriber so Cheek can continue paying writers for their insight and expertise.
New ‘Post and Boast’ laws to be debated in Western Australian parliament this week would make it illegal to share content the state government deems to glorify ‘offending conduct’ such as unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct. If passed, the punitive legislation would mark an affront on the right to free political expression, and provide other states with a manual on how to further close off the internet.
As a kid growing up around the turn of the millennium, I’d get a thrill from the cartoonish sounds of the dial-up modem as I logged online on my Windows 98 PC.
Through that bulky monitor, I had the freedom to explore all kinds of worlds: chatting to my friends on MSN messenger or visiting blogs and forums about more niche interests that none of my school mates cared about.
It’s easy to forget how quickly the internet has wrought massive changes in society. Not so long ago, mass communication was only available to a small elite -generally wealthy, homogenous and powerful. Now, teenagers making TikToks in their bedrooms will often reach larger audiences than the evening news bulletin. New media platforms like Cheek can thrive without the traditional gatekeepers.
We all know well the downsides of the internet — online abuse, social media addiction, misinformation. But the online world has given us freedoms to connect, be heard, access vast amounts of information, and explore new identities.
It seems that the era of online freedom and anonymity may be ending. The digital walls are closing in, as governments from across the world, including in Australia, introduce age-verification measures to block off certain parts of the internet from young people. These measures will require large tech platforms to collect more personal data from all users.
As tech journalist Taylor Lorenz says, ‘While preventing kids from allegedly harmful content online sounds like a great idea, these laws set the stage for authoritarian censorship, violate young people’s core civil liberties, forcibly expose users to significant privacy risks and utterly fail at their goal of “protecting kids”.’
In Western Australia, the state government is proposing new laws that could prove even more restrictive on online expression and have a stifling impact on protesters and social movements.
WA Labor have introduced ‘Post and Boast’ laws to the parliament, which they claim target ‘crimfluencers’, including ‘hoons’ who commit driving offences and then glorify them on social media. Other Australian states have similar laws, but none are anywhere near as wide in scope or as punitive as what is proposed for Western Australia.
The Western Australian legislation makes it illegal to disseminate “material about particular offending conduct” with the purpose of glorifying or encouraging the behaviour. It is punishable by three years imprisonment. ‘Offending conduct’ under the act includes unlawful assembly, trespass, disorderly conduct, and criminal damage — all charges commonly incurred by protesters.
Worryingly, the Bill leaves scope for this list of offences to be expanded later on through regulation.
It also allows for someone to be convicted for disseminating material relating to offences that haven’t resulted in prosecution or conviction, or that took place outside Western Australia.
That means posting or otherwise sharing footage of a rowdy protest, an act of civil disobedience, or an unauthorised mural being painted by a street artist could become illegal.
It means that Western Australians could possibly be prosecuted for sharing footage of illegal ‘Palestine Action’ protests in the UK.
There are exemptions to the law for journalists — which means traditional media once again becomes the gatekeeper deciding if protest actions deserve coverage, because campaigners and civilians are at risk of prosecution.
There is also an exemption for material that is ‘in the public interest’, but that term is not defined in the legislation, creating uncertainty for those who may wish to post in support of a protest. For fear of breaking the law, many will choose to remain silent.
For those who take part in civil disobedience or disruptive protest, getting arrested is often part of the equation. Protesters accept they’ll face legal repercussions for their actions but deem it a reasonable price to pay for the furthering of their cause. These protesters make sacrifices to start important conversations.
But engaging in those conversations by posting about someone else’s protest hardly seems like it should be a crime.
There are also concerns the legislation won’t fulfil its stated purpose. In other states where similar laws have been introduced, legal experts have warned the measures are not effective in preventing crime, and that they may disproportionately target First Nations young people.
Western Australia faces an existing youth justice crisis, with horrifying conditions and extended lockdowns in youth prisons. In recent years, two teenagers have been driven to suicide in WA youth detention facilities. More punitive measures against young people will only make the crisis worse.
University of Western Australia law professor Murray Wesson says the bill may not be in line with Australia’s constitution. “The extraordinarily broad nature of the offence has the potential to curtail and chill free political communication in Western Australia, in manner that is incompatible with the constitutionally guaranteed implied freedom of political communication,” he wrote in a commentary on the bill.
Meanwhile, a coalition of civil society groups, including Social Reinvestment WA, Amnesty International Australia and various environmental groups have written to the government requesting the legislation be redrafted to not impede on advocacy and political communication.
It’s hard not to suspect that this bill is anti-protest legislation in disguise. On environmental issues in particular, the WA government is under increasing pressure from activists. WA is the only state in Australia without an emissions reduction target, and Premier Roger Cook’s Labor government has pressured its federal counterpart to approve fossil fuel projects and reject nature laws. When a government is so blatantly captured by the fossil fuel industry, you can see why it might wish to shut down dissent.
All of the major social movements of the 21st century — including the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, #MeToo, Black Lives Matter and the youth climate strikes — have relied upon social media for mobilising, organising and messaging.
Restrictions on online freedoms take away some of the power that the internet has granted to grassroots movements. That seems like a backwards step for democracy.
We’ve seen how such laws can spread quickly between jurisdictions. Laws around online age restrictions have recently been proposed or enforced in places including Australia, the UK, Ireland and 11 US states. If WA Labor goes ahead with its punitive Post and Boast Bill, the state may set an example for other governments on how to make the internet another degree less free.
About the author
Gerard Mazza
Gerard Mazza has worked as a campaigner, writer, school teacher, and radio producer. He grew up in Bunbury, Western Australia, and now lives in Fremantle.
You can find more of Gerard’s work on his website: gerardmazza.com.
