The Claim
“Deleted negative comments on the Department of Immigration's Facebook page, but left objectively false comments, such as claims that asylum seeking is illegal.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
Core Claim: Deleting Negative Comments
The claim that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) engaged in selective moderation of Facebook comments is partially supported by documented incidents, though the specific claim about deleting negative comments while leaving false ones is not directly verifiable through available sources.
Documented Social Media Monitoring:
In April 2014, DIBP was documented engaging in active monitoring and attempted censorship of social media content related to immigration issues. The Department publicly threatened refugee advocate Vanessa Powell via Twitter, demanding she remove a Facebook post containing a comment they deemed "offensive" directed at a DIBP staff member [1]. The Department tweeted:
"@VanessaPowell25 it's come to our attention that a Facebook post on your wall contains an offensive remark directed at a staff member. If you do not remove your Facebook post with immediate effect, we will consider our options further." [1]
This incident demonstrates that DIBP actively monitored social media and attempted to silence critical commentary, though it involved a public threat rather than direct comment deletion on their own page.
Data Breach Context:
The Facebook post referenced in the claim (DIBPAustralia/posts/730778596956538) likely relates to the February 2014 period when DIBP accidentally published personal details of approximately 10,000 asylum seekers on their website [2]. The Department took 13 days to remove this information after discovery, and later faced findings from the Privacy Commissioner that they had unlawfully disclosed personal information [3].
Claim: "Asylum Seeking is Illegal" is Objectively False
This component of the claim is VERIFIED AS ACCURATE based on international law.
International Legal Framework:
Under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, seeking asylum is not illegal. Key relevant provisions include:
- Article 31 of the 1951 Convention explicitly states that refugees should not be penalized for irregular entry if they are coming directly from territories where their life or freedom was threatened [4].
- Article 33 (Non-refoulement) prohibits returning refugees to countries where they face serious threats to life or freedom [4].
- Article 32 provides that refugees cannot be expelled except under strictly defined conditions [4].
The UNHCR, as guardian of these conventions, has consistently stated that "a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom" [4].
Australian Obligations:
Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. The Australian Human Rights Commission confirms that "Australia is obliged under international law to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees, regardless of how or where they arrive" [5].
Distinction Under Australian Law:
While asylum seeking itself is not illegal under international law, the method of arrival can involve breaches of Australian migration law (such as arriving without a valid visa). However, the claim that "asylum seeking is illegal" conflates:
- The legal right to seek asylum (protected under international law)
- Potential breaches of visa/entry requirements (domestic administrative matters)
The Refugee Convention specifically protects asylum seekers from penalties for irregular entry when coming from threatened territories [4].
Missing Context
1. Selective Moderation vs. Standard Practice
The claim omits whether selective comment moderation was:
- Official DIBP policy
- The action of individual social media managers
- Common practice across government departments
Government agencies typically have social media moderation policies that may include removing profanity, personal attacks, or off-topic comments, while allowing policy debate [6]. However, selective removal of criticism while permitting misinformation would represent problematic moderation.
2. The Broader Social Media Policy Context
The incident occurred in 2014, during early periods of government social media engagement when agencies were still developing moderation protocols. The Abbott Government (2013-2015) was in office, with Scott Morrison as Immigration Minister (September 2013 - December 2014).
3. Labor Government Comparison
The claim omits context about whether the previous Labor Government (2007-2013) engaged in similar moderation practices on their departmental social media pages.
4. Technical Limitations
The original Facebook post URL is no longer accessible, preventing direct verification of specific comment moderation actions. Web archives do not preserve real-time comment threads.
Source Credibility Assessment
Original Source 1: Facebook Post (DIBPAustralia/posts/730778596956538)
Not verifiable - The specific Facebook post is no longer publicly accessible. Without access to the original thread, specific claims about comment deletion cannot be independently verified.
Original Source 2: Glenn Murray Blog (Archived)
The archived blog post from Glenn Murray's website appears to be a personal blog discussing asylum policy. Personal blogs can provide commentary and perspective but are not authoritative news sources or official documents. The source is opinion/commentary rather than investigative journalism.
Assessment:
The original sources provided with the claim are limited in credibility:
- One is inaccessible (Facebook post)
- One is a personal blog (opinion/commentary)
Neither constitutes primary documentary evidence or mainstream investigative reporting. The claim would be stronger if supported by:
- Screenshots of the comment moderation
- Whistleblower testimony from DIBP social media staff
- Internal DIBP social media policy documents
- Mainstream media investigation of the specific claim
Labor Comparison
Did Labor governments engage in similar social media moderation?
Direct Comparison Not Found:
Searches did not locate specific documented instances of Labor governments (2007-2013) deleting negative comments on departmental Facebook pages while leaving false information. However:
Labor's Approach to Social Media:
The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) were generally regarded as more social media-savvy and engaged with online communities. The Labor government established social media channels for departments but specific moderation practices are not well-documented in public sources.
Common Government Practice:
Social media moderation by government agencies is standard practice across political administrations. Agencies typically:
- Remove profanity or abusive content
- Delete off-topic comments
- May remove comments that violate platform terms of service
- Often face accusations of censorship when removing critical comments
The key question is whether the alleged selective moderation (removing criticism but leaving misinformation) was:
- Unique to the Coalition/DIBP
- Common across governments
- The action of individual staff members
Conclusion:
Without documentation of Labor government moderation practices for direct comparison, this element of the claim cannot be fully contextualized. Both major parties have managed departmental social media accounts, but specific moderation decisions are typically made at departmental/operational levels rather than ministerial direction.
Balanced Perspective
If the Claim is Accurate
If DIBP did engage in selective moderation removing criticism while leaving false claims, this would represent:
Legitimate Concerns:
- Inappropriate use of government platforms to shape public discourse
- Potential violation of free speech principles for government pages
- Misleading the public by allowing misinformation to stand
- Unfair treatment of critics versus supporters
However, Context Matters:
- Social media moderation is inherently difficult and subjective
- Government agencies face thousands of comments, often requiring quick decisions
- The distinction between "negative" (opinion) and "false" (factual) can be unclear
- Staff may have been following imperfect moderation guidelines
The "Asylum Seeking is Illegal" Misinformation
Why This Matters:
Claims that asylum seeking is "illegal" were commonly made by commentators and some political figures during this period. The conflation of:
- "Illegal entry" (potential breach of visa requirements)
- "Illegal asylum seeking" (contradiction of international law protections)
...served political purposes in justifying harsh border protection policies.
Government Position vs. Fact:
The Coalition Government under Abbott and Morrison consistently used language emphasizing "illegal boat arrivals" and "stopping the boats." While this framing has political utility, it technically misrepresents international law, where seeking asylum itself is a protected right [4][5].
Key Context: This is NOT unique to the Coalition - both major parties have used language that blurs the legal distinction between irregular entry and asylum seeking.
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The claim contains two distinct components with different verifiability:
Component 1: Deleting Negative Comments While Leaving False Ones
Status: UNVERIFIABLE
- The specific Facebook post is no longer accessible
- No mainstream media investigation of this specific claim was found
- DIBP did engage in documented social media monitoring and attempted censorship (April 2014 incident) [1]
- However, the specific claim about selective comment deletion cannot be independently verified
Component 2: "Asylum Seeking is Illegal" is Objectively False
Status: TRUE
- Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, seeking asylum is a protected right, not an illegal act [4]
- Article 31 specifically protects refugees from penalties for irregular entry [4]
- Australia is a signatory to these conventions and legally bound to these principles [5]
- Claims that asylum seeking is "illegal" misrepresent international law
Overall Assessment:
The claim mixes a verifiable legal fact (asylum seeking is not illegal under international law) with an unverifiable specific incident (selective comment moderation). The Department's documented history of social media monitoring and heavy-handed responses to criticism (April 2014 incident) lends some credibility to the claim, but specific evidence is lacking.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim contains two distinct components with different verifiability:
Component 1: Deleting Negative Comments While Leaving False Ones
Status: UNVERIFIABLE
- The specific Facebook post is no longer accessible
- No mainstream media investigation of this specific claim was found
- DIBP did engage in documented social media monitoring and attempted censorship (April 2014 incident) [1]
- However, the specific claim about selective comment deletion cannot be independently verified
Component 2: "Asylum Seeking is Illegal" is Objectively False
Status: TRUE
- Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, seeking asylum is a protected right, not an illegal act [4]
- Article 31 specifically protects refugees from penalties for irregular entry [4]
- Australia is a signatory to these conventions and legally bound to these principles [5]
- Claims that asylum seeking is "illegal" misrepresent international law
Overall Assessment:
The claim mixes a verifiable legal fact (asylum seeking is not illegal under international law) with an unverifiable specific incident (selective comment moderation). The Department's documented history of social media monitoring and heavy-handed responses to criticism (April 2014 incident) lends some credibility to the claim, but specific evidence is lacking.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
sbs.com.au
The Department of Border Protection and Immigration has publicly asked a refugee advocate to remove an "offensive" Facebook post, sparking outrage on social media.
SBS News -
2
sbs.com.au
The accidental public release of thousands of asylum seekers' details could have mixed implications for their safety.
SBS News -
3
theguardian.com
Privacy commissioner finds sensitive data on almost 10,000 asylum seekers was left publicly exposed for 16 days after the breach was reported
the Guardian -
4
unhcr.org
Unhcr
-
5
humanrights.gov.au
Humanrights Gov
-
6
legalclarity.org
Understand the legal boundaries for government social media comment moderation. Learn when agencies can and cannot restrict public input.
LegalClarity
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.