Autism Myths and Misinformation Exist in Legal Grey Zone

In a landmark moment for disability rights in Australia, the government’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) comes amid growing concerns about misinformation affecting the autistic community and broader public discourse on disability.

Annie Crowe, CEO of NeuroAccess and a prominent voice on disability rights, warns about the dangers of misinformation regarding neurodiversity. “Once misinformation enters the public sphere, especially around something as deeply personal and emotional as pregnancy and disability, it’s almost impossible to undo the harm,” Crowe told LSJ Online. “Even if studies are later debunked or retracted, the initial headlines tend to stick in people’s minds far more than the corrections.”

Recent statistics show autism diagnoses in Australia have increased significantly. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, autistic people comprised just over 1 percent of Australians (290,900) in 2022, representing a 41.8 percent increase from 205,200 in 2018. NSW-based autism advocacy organization Aspect suggests the actual prevalence could be as high as 1 in 40 Australians.

Jacqui Borland, Aspect’s CEO, attributes the rise to “increased awareness and better diagnoses, along with increased diagnoses amongst previously under-recognised groups such as women, girls and Australians aged 60+.” Experts emphasize these numbers reflect improved diagnostic practices rather than an epidemic.

The DDA review follows the Disability Royal Commission, which exposed persistent discrimination in Australian society. The Attorney-General’s office initiated this review in August, focusing on employment, education, and access to justice for people with disabilities. The government has already accepted in principle 15 recommendations related to the Act, with the consultation process open until October 24.

The Kingsford Legal Centre at UNSW has submitted several recommendations, including redefining direct discrimination as “unfavourable treatment” and clarifying that discrimination doesn’t require discriminatory intent. Importantly, they highlighted how the current burden of proof disadvantages victims, stating: “In our experience many matters do not proceed simply because an applicant does not hold or have access to the requisite evidence to discharge their burden of proof.”

Crowe echoes this sentiment: “Right now, the system protects organisations more than it protects disabled people. But with the Act under review, we have a real chance to shift from a model that punishes discrimination after the fact to one that actively builds accessibility and inclusion from the start.”

The intersection of misinformation and disability rights has been thrust into the spotlight recently with controversial claims from the US government. On September 23, claims emerged linking autism to maternal use of acetaminophen (paracetamol in Australia) during pregnancy, along with assertions that folinic acid could “cure” autism.

The Coalition of Autism Scientists quickly rejected these claims, stating they “do not support the claim that Tylenol causes autism and leucovorin is a cure, and only stoke fear and falsely suggest hope when there is no simple answer.” Despite this, the US Food and Drug Administration announced intentions to update labeling for Tylenol products, while acknowledging no causal relationship had been established.

Adjunct Associate Professor John Kramer, Chair of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ Specific Interests group for ADHD, ASD and Neurodiversity, compared these claims to Andrew Wakefield’s discredited 1998 study linking the MMR vaccine to autism.

When asked if such misinformation could constitute hate speech or discrimination, Crowe noted the legal complexities: “Our current laws around hate speech and vilification are narrowly drawn, and they don’t always capture harmful rhetoric about disability unless it meets a very high threshold. While there are provisions under the DDA and other legislation that prohibit discriminatory conduct, harmful misinformation about causes and ‘treatments’ for autism often slips through the cracks.”

The KLC submission addresses this gap by advocating for a harm-based test for vilification aligned with Victorian reforms or proposed Queensland tests that would prohibit public acts a reasonable person would consider hateful, contemptuous, or ridiculing toward those with protected attributes.

As Australia works to strengthen its disability rights framework, the challenge remains in balancing free speech with protection from harmful misinformation. The outcome of the DDA review could mark a significant shift in how Australian law approaches disability discrimination and vilification, particularly in an increasingly digital age where misinformation spreads rapidly.

“If we want a society where autistic people can thrive,” Crowe concludes, “we need to look beyond outdated myths and address the systems that perpetuate them. That means tackling misinformation, strengthening our laws, and designing policies that protect and include — not punish and exclude.”