The security industry serves as a front line in safeguarding not only physical spaces but also the liberties that define society. A pressing concern that has emerged is the potential impact of the so-called "Misinformation Bill." Framed as a solution to the spread of false information, this legislation will inadvertently become a tool for censorship, impacting the very freedoms that individuals in security and law enforcement are sworn to protect. As those tasked with upholding order, it is crucial for security professionals to understand the deeper implications of this bill.
The first point to understand is that such legislation significantly infringes upon the right to free speech and expression. The core issue is that the bill provides governmental bodies the power to determine what constitutes misinformation, thereby raising red flags for the concept of legitimate public discourse. One might wonder, "Who decides what is true or false?" History has shown that those in positions of authority don't possess the ability to make these decisions objectively.
The subjectivity inherent in deciding what is misinformation transforms this bill into a Trojan horse for censorship, a tool that can be misused to silence perspectives that do not align with the prevailing political agenda.
Security professionals understand the importance of clarity and consistency. Whether it is determining who poses a threat or responding to a critical incident, the value of an objective standard cannot be overstated. When a law introduces subjectivity, such as deciding what information is deemed "misleading," it opens the door to bias, misinterpretation, and abuse. The parallels to vague, selectively enforced regulations in the security field are obvious. Just as unclear rules in security lead to inconsistent application of force, vague laws about misinformation lead to unequal treatment under the law. Considering the already obvious failures of the laws in the NT and the apartheid enforcement by activist judicial members, we don't need more.
This concern is not merely theoretical. Similar laws passed in other countries, like the UK, provide a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of attempts to control information. In some nations, misinformation laws have led directly to the suppression of political dissent. Activists who have raised legitimate criticisms of the government have found themselves targeted under these laws, their voices silenced in the name of "public safety." Such outcomes create a chilling effect, whereby citizens fear expressing even reasonable views lest they fall afoul of subjective legal standards. Security professionals understand the importance of public trust and cooperation; how can this be maintained in an environment where people are afraid to speak their minds?
These laws have also been used to suppress political opposition. In several countries, misinformation regulations have provided a convenient cover for political figures to silence adversaries or those who present inconvenient truths. The rise of such dynamics not only undermines democratic discourse but also sows mistrust in public institutions, breeding instability. Those working in the security industry should be especially concerned with how distrust and instability increase the risk of public disorder. When dissenting voices are silenced, it does not eliminate discontent; it drives it underground, often with dangerous consequences.
Another major risk of the Misinformation Bill is that it opens the door to the weaponisation of vague definitions against vulnerable groups, including minority voices and whistleblowers. The subjective nature of terms like "misinformation" is easily used as a pretext to suppress marginalised perspectives. History is full of examples where the control of information was wielded to maintain the status quo, marginalising those whose voices needed to be heard the most. Whistleblowers, for example, play a critical role in exposing corruption, incompetence, and abuse of power. But under a regime where their revelations could be labelled as misinformation, there is a real risk of silencing those who are brave enough to speak truth to power.
For those of us in the security field, the parallels are clear. Just as whistleblowers and our industry assets are vital to uncovering hidden threats within an organisation, honest voices are necessary for maintaining the health of a society. A bill that will be used to punish these voices fosters an environment where critical information remains concealed until it is too late to act. This will have significant ramifications for security personnel tasked with responding to crises that could have been prevented had information been freely shared.
If the Misinformation Bill becomes law, security professionals must be prepared to deal with the unintended consequences. The suppression of free speech does not make dissent go away — it merely pushes it into the shadows. As security professionals, you know that threats left to fester beneath the surface, grow into something far more dangerous. The anger of those whose voices are silenced will not dissipate; it will gather strength, and without legitimate outlets for expression, it will erupt in unpredictable and violent ways.
We have seen these dynamics play out time and again in regions with stringent censorship laws. Political suppression breeds radicalisation. The security industry is left to pick up the pieces when frustrated individuals and groups resort to drastic measures. In this context, the role of a security officer becomes more challenging and potentially dangerous. Thus, preventing the erosion of legitimate channels for public discourse is not only a matter of principle but also a practical necessity for maintaining public order.
The role of the security professional is more than just preventing physical threats—it is about understanding the social dynamics that create conditions for conflict. The Misinformation Bill will have a far-reaching impact on public safety. By silencing dissent, limiting public discourse, and enabling the weaponization of vague definitions, it will transform society into a place where mistrust and fear dominate. This will lead to obvious increases in violence.
We must ask ourselves: Is this the kind of society we want to create? The role of legislation should be to protect the public, not to stifle its voice. It is incumbent upon all of us, especially those in the security industry, to be vigilant against the erosion of the freedoms that underpin our society. We must advocate for clear, fair laws that protect individuals from genuine harm without infringing on their right to express differing opinions. Just as in the physical realm, where the overreach of force can lead to more harm than good, the overreach of control in the informational sphere can do more damage than it seeks to prevent.
The Misinformation Bill presents itself as a protector of truth, but it is a Trojan horse for censorship. Those in the security industry should recognise the dangers that arise when the line between order and oppression becomes blurred. Upholding safety is about more than dealing with physical threats, it is also about ensuring that the social fabric remains intact, built on a foundation of freedom and mutual respect. It is time to look beyond the superficial promise of safety this bill offers and to consider the real cost to liberty and public trust. Only then can we truly fulfil our mission of protecting the society we serve.
As an industry, we don't rely on the police; they are never there and rarely come. The enforcers of this censorship and oppression will be tasked to the very policing agency that cannot and will not deal with the current violent trends in society. However, we will need to accept that their presence onsite may now be to lawfully escalate public anger, and that will create an even more dangerous dynamic for our industry. From the author.
The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.
Comments