Australia’s “misinformation and disinformation” bill is being criticized by several Christian and Muslim leaders, concerned about the way its provisions might negatively influence religious discourse.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is designed to give the government’s communications and media regulator ACMA new powers regarding enforcement of rules that concern online content.

Some reports describe those powers as “broad” and the language of the proposed law also comes across as vague – the word “reasonably verifiable” is there to describe when content can be branded as misleading, false, deceptive, or is “reasonably likely” to cause serious harm.

That the bill excludes “content shared for religious purposes” was not enough to put Australia’s religious leaders’ minds at ease.

For one, platforms must use a number of tests related to “reasonableness” (of content being false, misleading, harmful, etc.), and the process could undermine the exception as these companies can be “reasonably” expected to censor more than necessary, in order to avoid paying fines.

In addition, online religious content will be subject to stricter rules than that which is offline, the signatories of a submission believe, and see the standard of “reasonableness” falling “far below Australia’s obligations under international human rights instruments.”

“We have significant concerns about the overall effect of the Bill on the free dissemination of ideas in the public sphere—in particular, religious speech and debate,” reads the document signed by the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia, the Shia Muslim Council of Australia, Australian Baptist Ministries, Presbyterian Church of Australia, Seventh Day Adventist Church of Australia, Hillsong Australia.

The submission was joined by the New South Wales (NSW) Council of Churches, and the Christian Schools Association.

The signatories state that the bill “places significant constraints on digital communications platform providers and incentivizes them to over-censor content on the possibility that it might be ‘harmful’.”

And despite “religious purposes content” being excluded, Australia’s religious leaders fear that the way the future law defines “misinformation” and “disinformation” is broad enough to allow ACMA to go after what they call “legitimate, good faith expression of religious, moral, and political opinions.”

Another submission against the bill came from Christ the Good Shepherd Church, which was in April the site of a stabbing attack when a priest was wounded. The authorities then used this incident to beat the “online disinformation” drum even harder and press for more censorship.

But this Church opposes such an approach, calling it out for exploiting tragic events for “political gain.”

“The attempt to manipulate public discourse by using this incident is deeply troubling on the state of politics in Australia,” Father Daniel wrote on behalf of the Church.

But, the bill also has its supporters – one being the Uniting Church in Australia Synod of Victoria and Tasmania.