HRLA is assisting Canadian father and activist Chris Elston, known as “Billboard Chris”, to challenge the eSafety Commissioner over a removal notice requiring social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to remove one of Mr Elston’s tweets.

Billboard Chris’s tweet criticised the appointment of a transgender-identifying activist, Teddy Cook, to a World Health Organisation (WHO) expert panel drafting guidelines for the care of people who identify as “transgender” or “non-binary”.

The tweet was removed after the Australian eSafety Commission deemed that it “is likely to cause serious harm” because it “misgenders” Cook.

The tweet referred to a news article about Cook’s appointment and read:

This woman (yes, she’s female), is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.’ People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.

Mr Elston has said about this case:

Whether or not you support my message, we can all agree that this form of state-imposed censorship is entirely illiberal and undemocratic. Australians have a right to openly discuss the serious issues impacting our children today.

Ultimately, the message I wanted to communicate with this Tweet is that children struggling with gender dysphoria deserve better than ‘guidelines’ written by activists who only want to push them in one direction.

X is also challenging the Australian government’s order.

Mr Elston’s case raises serious concerns about the power of the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to censor speech online. Despite this, the government is pushing ahead with legislation that will grant her even greater powers to police online content and penalise social media providers.

Last week, the Federal Government tabled its revised Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 (“Misinformation and Disinformation Bill”) after it was forced to withdraw the original Bill last year following widespread criticism from civil liberties groups, religious organisations, social media companies and even the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The government’s website states that it has conducted an “extensive public consultation process with key stakeholders to refine and prepare the Bill for introduction”.

The new bill places greater requirements on digital platforms and gives new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to gather information, approve industry codes, and enforce standards.

The Bill purports to address “harmful” online misinformation and disinformation that threatens public safety, democracy, and the economy, but critics argue that the new version fails to address any of the original concerns.

Australian patent attorney and commentator Chris Baxter, who has been commenting on the misinformation laws since last year, has expressed his concerns about the introduction of the revised bill, calling it “the darkest day for freedom of speech in Australian history”:

This legislation creates a two-tier rule book for what Australians can say, depending on who they are.

On the one hand, Government approved ‘professional’ media gets a free pass to publish whatever they want, and on the other, all sorts of punitive actions can be taken against platforms that allow citizen journalism.

His chief concern is the censorship of free speech:

So many perspectives of ordinary Australians are soon to be silenced from people who do not believe men can become women, to those who have doubts about the legitimacy of the banking system to those who have different perspectives on health, medicines and vaccines.

Commentator Monica Doumit is likewise concerned about the reach of the bill and the power granted to ACMA to determine what is ‘harmful’ content:

It’s dangerous to allow government bureaucracies to make decisions about which types of information are true, safe and reasonable and to ban the rest. One of the key things that protects a society from tyranny is the free flow of information and the ability of anyone to speak their mind. Once that is taken away, it won’t be easier to distinguish truth from lies, but it will be harder to distinguish truth from the ‘approved narrative’.

HRLA defends the fundamental freedom of everyday Australians to speak and live the truth.  With people like Billboard Chris and Jasmine Sussex already censored by the government for their “harmful” views, how much more censorship of mainstream opinions and important discussion will occur under these new laws?

Every person has the right to speak and live the truth. HRLA exists to protect this fundamental freedom for all Australians.