News

An episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s flagship investigative program, Australian Story, was withdrawn from broadcast just hours before its scheduled premiere on Monday evening, following the revelation of a decades-vintage conviction against its central subject. The program profiled Ian Williams, a 73-year-old Bendigo resident who last year pursued legal action against UBank, a subsidiary of the National Australia Bank (NAB), after being defrauded of $1338.

The ABC initially cited a need for further fact-checking as the reason for the postponement, but later clarified that Williams had not disclosed a prior conviction for indecent assault. Court records confirm Williams served two years in jail after being charged with the crime in 1993, according to reporting by The Sydney Morning Herald.

The decision to pull the episode, which had been heavily promoted over the preceding weekend, represents a significant financial loss for the public broadcaster. A source with knowledge of the production, speaking on condition of anonymity, estimated the total cost of the episode at approximately $100,000.

Williams, who successfully sued UBank for the return of his funds after an initial denial of responsibility from the bank, confirmed the conviction and expressed remorse when contacted by The Australian newspaper. He stated he was “sorry for hiding his ‘dark past’ and for wasting taxpayer dollars,” as reported by The Sydney Morning Herald.

The ABC’s response extended beyond simply removing the Australian Story episode. A corresponding 37-minute segment featuring Williams from the investigative program Background Briefing, originally aired in July of the previous year, was similarly taken down. All associated promotional materials and online coverage were scrubbed from the ABC’s platforms.

An ABC spokesperson stated that the newly disclosed information regarding Williams was deemed “materially impactful on the character portrayed in the program and its past coverage,” and that content featuring Williams no longer met the broadcaster’s editorial standards. The spokesperson confirmed the Australian Story episode would not be rebroadcast.

The Australian Story episode focused on Williams’ dispute with NAB, which began after two unauthorized transactions appeared on his bank statement in 2022, both originating from a Coles supermarket located 150 kilometers from his home. Williams initially sought $379 million in damages from NAB, arguing that the $1338 loss represented 5.5 percent of the bank’s after-tax profit, equivalent to 5.5 percent of his annual pension. While his claim was ultimately dismissed in the Victorian Supreme Court, NAB subsequently apologized for initial miscommunication and refunded the stolen funds.

Australian Story, which celebrates its 30th anniversary in 2026, is a Logie-award-winning program known for its in-depth profiles of Australians from diverse backgrounds. The program is broadcast nationally on ABC Television and is produced by the ABC News and Current Affairs Department, according to Wikipedia.

Turkey is poised to implement sweeping changes to social media regulation, requiring users to verify their identities with the government or risk losing access to their accounts. The move, spearheaded by Justice Minister Akın Gürlek, aims to curb online abuse and hold individuals accountable for their posts, but has sparked concerns about freedom of expression and potential government surveillance.

Minister Gürlek stated unequivocally that social media platforms are “definitely not a space for freedom,” adding, “If you use them, you’ll have to use your real name. And if you commit a crime, you’ll be held responsible.” The new regulations will require both identity and mobile phone verification to access social media, effectively ending anonymity for Turkish users. This policy shift comes amid growing concerns over disinformation, hate speech, and online harassment within the country.

The initiative builds on previous statements from Gürlek regarding the need for identity verification on social media platforms. He previously announced that accessing social media accounts would require both identity and mobile phone verification. The government plans to implement a transition period, giving users approximately four months to comply with the new rules or face account closure, enforced by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK).

The proposed regulations are not limited to Turkish citizens. Individuals accessing social media from abroad will as well be required to verify their identities, potentially through passport verification and mobile phone confirmation. Gürlek also indicated plans to establish specialized teams within all public prosecutor’s offices to combat illegal betting and match-fixing, further demonstrating a broader crackdown on online activity.

Concerns Over Digital Surveillance and Censorship

The move has drawn sharp criticism from digital rights organizations, who warn that the regulations could lead to widespread self-censorship and a chilling effect on free speech. The Expression Freedom Association (İFÖD) has labeled the plan a “digital isolation project,” arguing that it will create a “Digital Panopticon” – a system of pervasive surveillance where individuals are constantly monitored and controlled. İFÖD highlighted the parallel efforts to ban social media access for those under 15 and restrict access for older minors, framing the combined measures as a comprehensive attempt to control the online sphere. The concept of the “Panopticon” originates with 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, describing a prison design where inmates are constantly visible to a central observer, inducing self-discipline.

According to İFÖD, the regulations risk fostering a climate of fear and discouraging critical discourse. The organization warned on February 18th that the measures would eliminate online anonymity, leading to “fişlenme” – a Turkish term referring to the fear of being profiled and blacklisted.

How the System Will Operate

Gürlek described the verification process as similar to accessing a bank account, requiring users to provide identification and receive a verification code. He dismissed concerns about government tracking, stating that the process involves only a one-time verification code and aims to create a “secure area.” He also pointed to similar strict regulations already in place in Germany and Spain.

The Justice Minister emphasized that the regulations are not solely focused on punishing wrongdoing but also on preventing it. He noted the prevalence of “smear campaigns” and anonymous accounts used to spread misinformation and harassment. “If someone opens an account, they must take responsibility for it,” Gürlek stated. “Anonymous, fake accounts should not be opened.”

The government is currently collaborating with social media platforms and the BTK to develop the implementation process. A transition period will be established, during which anonymous accounts will be given a deadline to verify their identities. The BTK will be responsible for enforcing the regulations and imposing penalties for non-compliance.

Broader Crackdown on Online Activity

The push for social media regulation is part of a broader trend of increasing government control over the digital space in Turkey. The proposed “Family Package” legislation, currently awaiting parliamentary approval, includes provisions for banning social media access for individuals under 15 and requiring age verification for those 18 and under. This legislation, combined with the identity verification requirements, signals a significant shift towards greater state oversight of online activity.

Gürlek also announced plans to establish specialized teams within all public prosecutor’s offices to combat illegal betting and match-fixing, demonstrating a wider effort to police online behavior.

The 12th Judicial Package is expected to include these social media regulations, signaling a swift move towards implementation. The coming months will be critical as the government finalizes the details of the regulations and prepares to enforce them, raising questions about the future of online freedom and privacy in Turkey.

What impact will these regulations have on political discourse and freedom of expression in Turkey? Share your thoughts in the comments below.