🇦🇺AUSTRALIANS🇦🇺 STOP THE CENSORSHIP BILL! Here are some paste-ready options (2–4 sentences each), that you can attach to the template in the attached post. Copy the relevant block and paste it directly after “I recommend the Committee reject the Bill.” in the template. Please share and help to stop the increasingly authoritarian Labor Party. ___________________________________________ Option 1 – Veteran / service background: As a former member of the Australian Defence Force I took an oath to defend the freedoms of this country, including the ability of citizens to criticise government policy without fear of arbitrary suppression. The Bill’s vague definition of “seriously harmful material and conduct,” combined with penalties large enough to force platforms into over-compliance, creates a clear risk that lawful discussion of national security, veterans’ issues, immigration and accountability will be demoted or removed. Existing criminal laws already deal with illegal content; this measure is not required for that purpose and will chill the open debate that a free society depends on. ___________________________________________ Option 2 – Parent: As a parent I support strong action against illegal material that harms children, but this Bill goes far beyond that. Its broad Digital Duty of Care and extreme civil penalties will incentivise platforms to remove or restrict ordinary parental discussion of education, health, gender and culture simply to reduce regulatory risk. The result will be less information for families, not more protection, while the Commissioner’s expanded powers increase the chance of viewpoint-based decisions about what parents may see and share. ___________________________________________ Option 3 – Small business / self-employed: My livelihood depends on reliable access to online platforms for advertising, customer communication and ordinary commercial speech. The Bill’s combination of vague “serious harm” standards and penalties up to $109 million will push platforms to err on the side of removal, raising costs and uncertainty for small operators who cannot afford compliance teams or legal challenges. Existing criminal laws already cover illegal content; this additional duty is not necessary and will disproportionately burden legitimate business and political expression. ___________________________________________ Option 4 – Ordinary citizen / free-speech focus: I have already seen platforms throttle or remove lawful posts on elections, public health, immigration and religious topics under existing rules. Expanding that pressure through a broad statutory duty, extreme penalties and wider Commissioner powers will make it even harder for ordinary Australians to engage in open political debate. Criminal law is the correct tool for illegal content; a vague duty of care is not, and it risks turning routine disagreement into something platforms treat as a compliance problem. ___________________________________________ Option 5 – Religious or traditional viewpoint: Traditional religious and cultural views on family, sex and moral questions are already frequently treated as “harmful” by platforms and activist groups. The Bill’s vague definitions and high penalties will intensify that pressure, giving platforms a strong incentive to demote or remove lawful religious and political expression to avoid risk. Protecting children from illegal material does not require giving regulators and platforms this degree of discretionary power over contested but lawful speech. ___________________________________________ Choose the closest match, paste the sentences into the template, add your name and any brief personal detail at the start if you wish, then submit as a Word or PDF file via the inquiry page or by email to [email protected] before 30 October 2026. ___________________________________________ These blocks are written for formal parliamentary submissions and contain no calls for unlawful action. – at Bowral - Mittagong, New South Wales