Aussie Human Rights Commission Demands Climate Censorship

Essay by Eric Worrall

A senate inquiry run by greens is receiving lots of demands for censorship for climate skeptics. But the HRC submission really stands out.

These reasonable climate change opinions could be silenced if the Human Rights Commission outlaws ‘misinformation’

The powerful Australian Human Rights Commission is the latest in a long list of climate change preachers that believe you and I are too stupid to figure out what misinformation is, writes James Bolt.

James Bolt
September 27, 2025 – 5:00AM

Let’s ask the age-old question on freedom of speech: who do you trust with the power to tell you what you can read, hear and think?

More specifically – who do you trust with that power over what you can read, hear and think on climate change policy?

…

The AHRC in a Senate submission said “regulation is necessary” to stop “misinformation” and “false narratives” about climate change being spread.

They want this because “the right to a healthy environment is … an important aspect of human rights protection” and “swift and decisive action is essential to mitigate the worst effects of climate change”.

We have let elites get away with this framing of misinformation for far too long.

When they say “we need to clamp down on misinformation”, we have to push them to follow through on what that sentence means: “We need to clamp down on misinformation, because we believe you are too stupid to figure out what misinformation is by yourselves.”

…

Read more: https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/these-reasonable-climate-change-opinions-could-be-silenced-if-the-human-rights-commission-outlaws-misinformation/news-story/6de9f7e7f896d5ba0bce97dd919e515a

From the Human Rights Commission Senate inquiry submission;

Summary

1. Climate-related misinformation and disinformation impacts Australia’s ability to respond effectively to climate change. False narratives distort public understanding, erode trust in science and institutions and delay urgent climate action. This submission highlights how misinformation and disinformation undermine not only the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment – but also rights to free expression and participation in public affairs. It underscores the concerning prevalence of misinformation and disinformation, and its negative impact on informed public debate and environmental advocacy.
2. The issue is not just about false information. It is about the deliberate manipulation of public discourse. Disinformation campaigns (often coordinated, and sometimes foreign-backed) exploit digital platforms to spread doubt and weaken democratic engagement on important topics like climate action. These tactics are increasingly sophisticated, including the use of bots, trolls and deepfakes – which can mislead the public and discredit legitimate climate advocacy.
3. It is equally important to emphasise that addressing misinformation and disinformation must not come at the expense of stifling legitimate public debate. Misinformation and disinformation are distinct from controversial or unpopular opinions. A healthy democracy depends on the ability to challenge dominant narratives and engage in robust debate. The challenge is to navigate this distinction carefully – ensuring that efforts to counter misinformation and disinformation do not inadvertently suppress diverse viewpoints or critical discourse.
4. Social media platforms play a central role in the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Their algorithms often prioritise engagement over accuracy, creating echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and can amplify misleading content. This dynamic amplifies outrage and fear, making it harder for evidence-based climate policy to gain traction. Without stronger transparency and public education, these platforms will continue to distort climate discourse.
5. Efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation must be grounded in human rights principles. While regulation is necessary, it must not come at the expense of freedom of expression. Past legislative attempts have failed to strike this balance. A rights-based approach is essential to ensure that responses are effective, proportionate and democratic.

Recommendations

1. The Commission makes the following recommendations
2. The Australian Government support independent research into the prevalence and impact of climate-related misinformation and disinformation, with a focus on human rights implications.
3. The Australian Government’s response to misinformation and disinformation be grounded in human rights law – with sufficient protections for freedom of expression.
4. The Australian Government strengthen transparency requirements for digital platforms, including improved access to data on the prevalence and impact of misinformation and disinformation.
5. The Australian Government increase investment in targeted digital literacy programs, with a particular focus on helping individuals critically assess online information, understand algorithmic content curation, and identify misinformation and disinformation.
6. The Australian Government legislate an AI Act.

Read more: Human Rights Commission Submission

The problem is they start from the position that anyone who disagrees with alarmist positions is a suspicious actor. Consider the following from the same submission;

Foreign actors using bots and trolls

1. The coordinated use of bots and trolls is a key tactic in disseminating climate- related disinformation. These tactics may be deployed as part of broader foreign interference operations, where state and non-state actors seek to manipulate public discourse.
2. Bots can be programmed to flood social media platforms, which can be used to repeat misleading or false content, amplifying narratives that deny climate science or question the legitimacy of renewable energy.43 Trolls on social media typically operate by provoking, misleading or disrupting conversations. Trolls can work in tandem with bots to target climate advocates, spread conspiracy theories and inflame social divisions.44
3. These tactics can use coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB), which includes organised efforts to manipulate public debate using fake accounts and deceptive practices. These kinds of tactics can be used to support ‘astroturfing’ – the practice of creating a false impression of widespread grassroots support or opposition to a particular policy position where that support or opposition does not in fact exist. Astroturfing is not limited to foreign actors; domestic groups may also employ such strategies to distort public discourse and undermine informed debate across a range of policy areas, including climate change.
4. CIB operations are already occurring in Australia and are likely to increase in frequency and sophistication. For example, during the 2019-2020 Black Summer Bushfires, Twitter accounts tried to get #ArsonEmergency trending to drown out dialogue acknowledging the link between climate change and bushfires.

Read more: Human Rights Commission Submission

How crazy is it to suggest anyone who casts doubt on the alleged connection between bushfires and climate change is a suspicious actor, who must be excluded from public discourse? Most past bushfire inquiries in Australia lighted lack of burn offs as a major factor driving the intensity of Aussie bushfires, so it is entirely reasonable to doubt that climate change is suddenly the most important factor, or even a significant factor. But if the human rights commission has their way, anyone who raises this issue could end up being censored or even imprisoned for casting doubt on the alleged link between bushfires and climate change.

The full list of senate submissions is available here. The inquiry home page is here.

Our old friend Peter Ridd has also done a deep dive into the climate integrity inquiry, which is well worth watching.

You may recall Ridd recently encountered the ugly face of Australian censorship first hand, when he got fired from his university tenure for daring to assume that as a university academic he enjoyed academic freedom.

The Aussie human rights commission obviously hasn’t learned the lesson of the Covid censorship debacle.

We’ve already been through this censorship merry-go-round during the Covid lockdown, and seen how damaging it was. Remember when Facebook was censoring anyone who suggested Covid leaked from a lab? Then when Fauci suggested it was a possibility, Facebook suddenly decided lab leak theories were no longer disinformation, and allowed people to discuss lab leak theories. Censorship protects groupthink, and the mistakes which arise from that group think – and sometimes those mistakes matter.

I don’t know if Covid leaked from a lab, though I believe this is the most likely explanation – but people should not have been prevented from discussing the possibility.

On this occasion knowing the origin of Covid didn’t affect health outcomes for people, and there is no chance China will be made to pay reparations for their carelessness in the foreseeable future, but this facebook debacle should be proof of how damaging censorship can be. Denying people access to good information because of prejudice forces people to act on bad information, which can lead to worse outcomes.

We’ve also seen plenty of evidence that Australia’s scientific institutions are far from perfect.

Who can forget Barry Marshall, the doctor who discovered ulcers are actually a bacterial infection? Marshall got so desperate to get people to pay attention to his research, in the end he infected himself to prove he was right. Imagine if the Human Rights Commission had ruled Barry’s outlandish ulcer theory was misinformation, and tried to silence him? Millions who have been cured of a horrible debilitating condition would instead still be suffering, or prematurely dead, from an entirely treatable condition.

Science advances when old theories are falsified as wrong or incomplete. Building walls of censorship to protect senior scientists from the embarrassment of criticism or falsification will retard the advance of science, and the realisation of better outcomes for everyone.

My poor Australia may be in for a very rough ride, when past mistakes are ignored, and even the human rights commission wants to clamp down on human rights. Let us hope there is an outbreak of sanity before life in Australia gets any worse.