Consider the following hypothetical legislation and scenario: Following recent calls from the United Nations and other international organisations, the Commonwealth government introduced the Prohibition of Misinformation Bill. The Minister introducing the bill said in the second reading speech; The government is aware of the harms that can arise from the spread of false information online and how that can impact the safety and well-being of members of the public. We have sought to enact this legislation to curb some of the harms that may arise from the communication of misinformation or information that is so extremely offensive that it is likely to cause harm in society. We are also concerned with the rise of extremist groups and extremist ideologies in the community and have taken steps in this legislation to curb the spread of these harmful ideologies. Ultimately, this bill is about protecting the people of Australia from harms that can occur in online communication. The Bill was passed by both houses of parliament and received Royal Assent from the Governor General on 25 January 2024. It was gazetted the next day. Prohibition of Misinformation Act 2024 1. Short Title This Act may be cited as the Prohibition of Misinformation Act. 2. Definitions 'misinformation' means a representation of something that is known or suspected to be false as true information in a context that the representation has the capacity to cause harm. 'offensive information' means information that is offensive to public sensitivities. 'harm' incudes psychological harm. 'Extremist ideology' means and ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance. 3. Offence of spreading misinformation Any person who knowingly spreads a) misinformation or b) offensive information in an online forum shall be guilty of an offence. 4. Offense to spread extremist ideology.

It is an offence to spread, promote, or discuss extremist ideology in an online forum. 5. Offence to incite violence It is an offence to spread misinformation that incites violence. FACTS: Andrew, a lifelong member of the Australia First Group, a right-wing political party, uses his twitter account to post memes and political commentary to his 200 followers. The police became concerned with a number of twitter accounts, including Andrew's. They found that a high number of accounts were retweeting Andrew's posts and some of them were being associated with white supremacist content. They flagged his account and initiated an investigation, which lead to a number of charges under the Act. On 16th February 2024, after Andrew saw his neighbour, Mathew, had posted about getting a drink driving charge, he posted in reply; 'Don't go to court, then there's nothing they can do. That's what happened to my friend, and he was let off completely'. When queried about this tweet, Andrew stated that he made the whole tweet up and he knew Mathew was stupid and if Mathew didn't go to court he would get into trouble. He said he hates Mathew and he hopes he goes to jail. The police charged Andrew with s3 of the Act for this tweet. On 26th February 2024 Andrew had shared a post with his 200 followers about the upcoming election. It said 'Do not vote for the major parties. They plan to increase your taxes by 10% after the election. Vote Australia First. They will reduce your taxes.' Police investigated the tweets in light of publicly available information about the policies of all parties. They found that both of the major parties had made election promises to reduce personal income taxes to all income brackets, and that the Australia First Party had no publicly available tax policy. As a result of this investigation, they charged Andrew under s3 of the act. On that same day Andrew had created and posted a meme to his twitter account that went viral. The meme was a picture of the Communications Minister Mr Greg Potato that had been doctored so that his head was replaced with a potato. Police spoke to Minister Potato who informed them that he had seen the meme at the time and was very offended personally. He said he used to get bullied about his name in school and seeing the meme had brought up these bad memories and that he had as a result suffered emotionally and sought counselling. In light of this further information the police charged Andrew under s3 for the potato meme. On 3rd March 2024 Andrew had posted; '95% of Australians believe that immigration should be stopped. Stop immigration. Keep Australia for Aussies.' He told police he genuinely believed that immigration to Australia from overseas should be stopped indefinitely. He said that he made up the 95% figure, and he knew it was probably exaggerated, but that he had

'spoken to a lot of people who agree with me'. Police charged him under s3 and s4 for this tweet. On 5th March 2024, Pamela, a famous Australian boxing champion and a follower of Andrew on Twitter, retweeted this post with the added caption 'Absolutely. Keep Australia white. Fight the immigrants'. Many people took issue with her post and there was an online furore in response. Pamela was unapologetic, however, and in one of her responses she tweeted 'As @Andrew has said, 95 percent of us agree on this. Immigrants are just going to keep coming here if they find it comfortable. The only way to stop it is for the people to take it into their own hands. If we see an immigrant in the street, we need to fight them. Make life hard. If they don't want to go home, give them some encouragement.' At the police interview Pamela admitted she didn't really believe Andrew's 95% figure, and she just said it because she thought it would get her tweet more attention. Police charged Pamela under s3, 4 and 5 of the Act for these tweets and retweets. Brenda is a university student who has been alarmed at Pamela and her racist views. Brenda closely follows Pamela on twitter and responds to any racist comments. On 7th March 2024, Brenda read Pamela's above tweet and retweeted it, adding 'Why is this racist woman even allowed to tweet here? Pamela is a dangerous person who is a has committed violent crimes before. We need to take her down before she causes someone's death! Fight Pamela, not immigrants!' On 8th March 2024, Brenda's follower, Gerard, read the online stoush and decided something needed to be done about Pamela and her dangerous racism. He ambushed Pamela on her way to a sporting tournament, stabbing her and leaving her needing 9 stitches in her abdomen. In the subsequent investigation into the stabbing, police interviewed Brenda. She admits she has never heard of Pamela committing or being charged with committing a violent crime, but she thought she'd better say something explosive like that to get people's attention. The police charged Brenda under s4 for discussing extremist ideology and 5 for inciting violence under the Act. You work for the Department of Public Prosecutions. The files in relation to Andrew, Pamela and Brenda all land on your desk. You are asked for an opinion whether or not to pursue any of the charges. Please give your opinion as to whether the charges in any of the files should be pursued by the DPP. Please outline and weigh up any relevant defences under statutory interpretation law that you think might be applicable and give your opinion on the outcome of the cases as far as statutory interpretation law applies. Please use IRAC to give your opinion.

Please do not discuss criminal law principles (including mens rea and criminal law defences) or tort law in your answer. You may briefly consider areas constitutional law if you think this might be relevant.