Abstract

Disinformation poses a profound threat to democratic societies by exploiting inherent freedoms and vulnerabilities within political and legal frameworks. This paper examines the intricate relationship between disinformation, democratic vulnerabilities, and the resultant path to violence, with a particular focus on Australia. Drawing upon the analytical insights of Barbara McQuade’s Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America and comparative contexts, this study explores how democratic freedoms, especially those pertaining to free speech, can paradoxically facilitate the spread of falsehoods that undermine social cohesion, incite violence, and erode trust in institutions. The Australian context, characterised by its unique constitutional framework, multicultural society, and geopolitical dynamics, is analysed through recent case studies including the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum, and foreign interference campaigns. The paper evaluates Australia’s regulatory responses, highlighting the tensions between safeguarding democratic freedoms and countering disinformation. Ultimately, it argues for pragmatic, balanced approaches that preserve democratic values while mitigating the harms of disinformation.

Keywords: disinformation, democracy, Australia, free speech, violence, regulation, foreign interference

1. Introduction

Democracy fundamentally relies on informed citizenry and open discourse; however, these very principles render democratic societies susceptible to manipulation through disinformation. Disinformation—deliberately false or misleading information disseminated to deceive—has emerged as a potent weapon capable of destabilising political processes, polarising communities, and fostering violence. Barbara McQuade’s Attack From Within offers a compelling narrative on how democratic freedoms, particularly the robust protections of free speech in the United States, create vulnerabilities exploited by malign actors domestically and internationally. The experiences of figures like Nina Jankowicz, targeted amid efforts to combat disinformation, illustrate the paradoxical challenges faced by democracies.

While much discourse centres on the American context, Australia presents a salient comparative case. Australia’s implied constitutional freedom of political communication contrasts with the U.S. First Amendment’s absolutism, providing a different legal landscape for regulating speech and addressing disinformation. This paper investigates how disinformation manifests within Australian society, the resultant vulnerabilities, and the policy responses adopted or proposed. It further explores the nexus between disinformation and violence, drawing parallels and distinctions with the U.S. experience.

2. Disinformation and Democratic Vulnerabilities

2.1 The Paradox of Free Speech in Democracies

Democracies cherish free speech as a cornerstone of liberty and political participation. Yet, as McQuade elucidates, this freedom can be weaponised. In the U.S., the First Amendment’s expansive protections often preclude governmental regulation of disinformation, allowing falsehoods to proliferate unchecked on social media platforms. Malign foreign actors, such as Russia during the 2016 presidential election, employed sophisticated bot networks and targeted advertisements to sow discord and erode public trust in democratic institutions. The anonymity and algorithmic amplification inherent in digital platforms exacerbate these vulnerabilities by enabling rapid, widespread dissemination of deceptive narratives.

Australia’s constitutional framework diverges notably. The High Court has recognized an implied freedom of political communication, as established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997), but this freedom is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable limitations aimed at protecting other legitimate interests, such as preventing hate speech or electoral interference. This distinction affords Australia greater latitude to regulate harmful content without breaching constitutional guarantees. The Online Safety Act 2021 exemplifies such regulatory efforts, empowering the eSafety Commissioner to remove content deemed harmful.

2.2 The Global Digital Ecosystem and Disinformation’s Reach

Despite regulatory differences, Australia shares with the U.S. and other democracies the challenge of combating disinformation within a globalised digital ecosystem. Social media platforms transcend national borders, allowing foreign state actors and non-state entities to target Australian audiences. Reports from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and government agencies have documented Chinese disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining public confidence in Australian government responses to crises such as COVID-19. Similarly, during the catastrophic 2019-2020 bushfires, false claims alleging arson by environmental activists proliferated, distracting from scientific consensus on climate change and complicating emergency responses.

These campaigns exploit societal divisions, targeting vulnerable groups and leveraging emotive issues to polarise communities. Indigenous Australians, for instance, faced disinformation during the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum, where falsehoods framed the proposal as a threat to property rights and sovereignty, contributing to heightened racial tensions and electoral defeat. Such tactics mirror historical precedents identified by McQuade, wherein disinformation normalises cruelty and facilitates authoritarian consolidation.

3. Australian Case Studies: Disinformation Campaigns and Impacts

3.1 COVID-19 Pandemic and Public Health Misinformation

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a critical inflection point for disinformation in Australia. False claims regarding vaccine safety, lockdown efficacy, and government motives spread rapidly across platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (now X), and TikTok. These narratives fuelledprotests, undermined public health compliance, and exacerbated societal mistrust. Research from the University of Melbourne linked belief in COVID-19 misinformation to increased distrust in institutions and higher susceptibility to extremist ideologies, highlighting the tangible risks of disinformation on social stability.

Inauthentic online accounts amplified racially charged narratives, intensifying xenophobia and social fragmentation. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) identified disinformation as a driver of youth radicalisation, contributing to a normalisation of violence and civil unrest. These developments underscore the capacity of disinformation to translate digital falsehoods into physical harm.

3.2 The 2023 Voice to Parliament Referendum

The Voice referendum epitomised the electoral harm wrought by disinformation. Campaigns disseminated misleading claims that the Voice would grant Indigenous Australians veto powers over legislation or facilitate land seizures. These narratives polarised the electorate and undermined national reconciliation efforts. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) encountered significant challenges in countering incitement and misinformation on social media, particularly on platforms with lax content moderation policies.

The slow response of platforms such as Twitter, exacerbated by leadership changes and reduced content oversight, allowed harmful content to fester. The referendum’s outcome, marked by division and radicalised discourse, illustrates the profound societal impact of disinformation on democratic processes.

3.3 Natural Disasters and Disinformation

Natural disasters present acute vulnerabilities. During the 2019-2020 bushfires, disinformation campaigns propagated unfounded arson theories, detracting from urgent firefighting efforts and climate policy debates. A 2024 University of Melbourne analysis warned that such misinformation could cause life-or-death delays in emergency responses, illustrating the lethal potential of disinformation.

3.4 Foreign Interference and Organised Crime

Foreign state actors have leveraged disinformation to advance geopolitical aims. Chinese campaigns during the COVID-19 crisis sought to deflect criticism of Beijing’s handling of the pandemic and sow discord within Australian society. The 2024 Australian Federal Police operation uncovered links between organised crime and disinformation networks exploiting technology for economic harm, demonstrating the multifaceted threats posed by coordinated disinformation efforts.

3.5 Urban Violence and Social Cohesion

Disinformation’s impact extends to urban security. Incidents such as firebombings targeting Jewish businesses in Melbourne, accompanied by anti-Semitic messaging and threats of violence, reveal how online hate speech can catalyse physical attacks. Monash University’s 2023 report emphasised that disinformation undermines city functions by eroding social cohesion and inflaming intercommunal tensions.

Climate disinformation remains persistent, with coordinated campaigns during electoral cycles denying the severity of environmental crises or promoting greenwashing initiatives. These efforts delay policy action and foster public cynicism, with economic and social consequences.

4. The Link Between Disinformation and Violence in Australia

Barbara McQuade’s thesis that disinformation desensitises populations to violence and silences opposition finds empirical support in the Australian context. Disinformation radicalises individuals and incites collective violence, blurring the boundary between online falsehoods and offline harm.

Studies demonstrate correlations between COVID-19 misinformation and support for violent extremism, with protests escalating into confrontations with law enforcement. ASIO’s 2025 threat assessment highlighted the role of disinformation in youth radicalisation and the normalisation of violence.

The surge in anti-Semitic incidents following October 2023, including targeted firebombings, reflects the dangerous consequences of hate-fuelled disinformation. Threatening videos echoing extremist rhetoric underscore the tangible risks to public safety.

The 2024 Sydney stabbings were politicised through misinformation, exacerbating social unrest. Despite law enforcement appeals for reliance on official sources, platforms amplified chaotic narratives, complicating crisis management.

Foreign disinformation campaigns have been linked to the rise of extremist violence, with parliamentary inquiries advocating integrated strategies to counter these threats. TikTok and similar platforms have been identified as vectors for hate speech targeting vulnerable communities, with offline violence as a consequence.

Threats to public officials have increased, fueled by misinformation-driven polarisation. The AEC faced violent online posts during the Voice campaign, while politicians such as Jason Clare received targeted abuse. ASIO warns of escalating threats emanating from disinformation-fuelleddivisions.

These developments substantiate the assertion that disinformation serves as a tool for silencing dissent through fear, entrenching societal divisions and undermining democratic resilience.

5. Policy Responses and Debates in Australia

5.1 Legislative Initiatives

Australia has pursued legislative responses aimed at mitigating disinformation’s harms while respecting democratic freedoms. The proposed Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 sought to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with enhanced oversight over digital platforms. The bill mandated proactive risk management, transparency in content moderation, and imposed significant fines for non-compliance.
 
The bill’s broad definitions of harmful content encompassed electoral interference and public health misinformation, reflecting recognition of disinformation’s multifaceted threats. However, the initiative faced substantial opposition, with critics alleging threats to free speech and potential governmental overreach. High-profile figures, including Elon Musk, denounced the bill as authoritarian, while human rights organisations cautioned against chilling effects on legitimate expression.
 
In response to polarised debate and public backlash, the government abandoned the bill in December 2024. Reporters Without Borders and other civil society groups called for balanced regulatory frameworks that safeguard both democratic discourse and public safety.

5.2 Existing Mechanisms and Voluntary Codes

Australia’s regulatory landscape includes the eSafety Commissioner’s powers under the Online Safety Act and voluntary industry codes developed in collaboration with technology companies. These codes emphasise transparency, user empowerment, and rapid response to harmful content. Nevertheless, critics argue that voluntary measures lack enforceability and are inadequate against sophisticated disinformation campaigns.
 
Advocacy groups such as Transparency Australia campaign for truth-in-political-advertising laws at the federal level, aiming to increase accountability and reduce electoral manipulation. However, legislative inertia and political sensitivities have impeded progress.

5.3 Balancing Freedom and Security

The policy debates encapsulate the tension McQuade identifies: protecting democratic freedoms without enabling sabotage. Australia’s pragmatic approach, grounded in proportionality and legal precedent, contrasts with the U.S. absolutist stance but nonetheless struggles with polarisationand misinformation’s evolving nature.
 
Effective responses require nuanced strategies that combine regulation, education, technological innovation, and international cooperation. Emphasising media literacy and public awareness can empower citizens to critically evaluate information, reducing disinformation’s impact.

6. Discussion: Weighing the Complexities

6.1 Arguments Supporting Stronger Regulation

Proponents of enhanced regulation argue that disinformation poses existential risks to democracy, public health, and social cohesion. The tangible links between falsehoods and violence justify proactive governmental intervention. Australia’s constitutional framework permits reasonable restrictions, enabling measures tailored to national contexts.

Effective regulation can compel platforms to prioritise content integrity, increase transparency, and deter malign actors. Legislative frameworks provide legal clarity and accountability mechanisms, fostering public trust.

6.2 Concerns Regarding Free Speech and Overreach

Opponents caution that broad regulatory powers risk infringing on free expression, chilling dissent, and enabling censorship. Disinformation’s definitional ambiguity complicates enforcement, raising concerns about arbitrariness and political misuse.

The digital environment’s complexity challenges traditional regulatory models, and overzealous laws may drive harmful content underground or stifle innovation. Civil liberties advocates emphasise the importance of safeguarding pluralism and open debate.

6.3 The Role of Platforms and Civil Society

Social media companies bear significant responsibility given their role as information gatekeepers. Voluntary codes and transparency reports represent steps forward but require rigorous enforcement and alignment with human rights standards.

Civil society organisations contribute to fact-checking, public education, and advocacy, forming essential components of a multi-stakeholder response. International collaboration is critical to address cross-border disinformation campaigns.

7. Conclusion

Disinformation represents a multifaceted threat that exploits democratic vulnerabilities to sow division, erode trust, and incite violence. Barbara McQuade’s analysis, coupled with the Australian experience, underscores the paradox wherein democratic freedoms facilitate both liberty and sabotage. Australia’s unique legal framework offers regulatory tools absent in the U.S., yet the challenges of digital misinformation demand balanced, pragmatic approaches.

Recent Australian events—from pandemic-related misinformation and electoral interference to foreign disinformation and urban violence—illustrate the tangible harms of unchecked falsehoods. Policy responses reveal the difficulty of reconciling freedom of expression with the imperative to protect public safety and democratic integrity.

Moving forward, Australia must adopt integrated strategies combining proportionate regulation, robust platform accountability, public education, and international cooperation. By learning from historical lessons and contemporary realities, Australia can fortify its democracy against the authoritarian playbook of deceit and division while preserving the core values that underpin its political system.

—

This paper has explored the complex dynamics of disinformation in democratic societies, with a focused comparative analysis on Australia. It highlights the necessity of nuanced, evidence-based responses that address both the technological and societal dimensions of this pressing challenge.