🚨 WIN for free speech in Australia — and for @BillboardChris. I first met Chris as this was starting out and it was immediately clear they’d picked the wrong person to censor! The eSafety Commissioner lost on nearly every legal point. Here’s what happened, and why it matters: 🧵
In Feb 2024, @BillboardChris shared a @DailyMail article highlighting the appointment of a transgender activist to a WHO panel of experts. He criticised the appointment, and used biologically accurate pronouns. @eSafetyOffice called it “cyber abuse” and ordered X to take it down
X refused. Later, they geo-blocked the post in Australia. But Chris fought the censorship — and just won his appeal before Australia’s Administrative Review Tribunal.
This isn’t just a win for Chris. It’s a landmark decision for free speech and online expression in Australia that will shape how the law is applied in Australia and impact similar cases beyond. And it’s a big blow to the eSafety Commissioner’s aggressive censorship campaign.
In a separate case, eSafety had claimed it could force global removal. The Tribunal here implicitly accepts that geoblocking by country is the legal standard. Not perfect. But a step toward internet sanity.
The Tribunal had to decide if @BillboardChris’ content could be taken down under two key sections of Australia’s Online Safety Act. Here’s the legal test 👇
The Deputy President warned the law risks becoming a “broadly available censorship tool based on emotional responses.” He said it doesn’t—because it requires intent. That is a welcome clarification. (Though note the state can still infer your intent wasn’t what you said it was…)
Although the ruling is good, this is the only part that explicitly touches on free expression — a quote from a commentary on the Act. The idea? You can appeal if your rights are violated. But after 5 days in Tribunal, expert witnesses, and lawyers… that’s an expensive “freedom.”
⚖️ Strike 1 for eSafety: Almost all of the Commissioner’s legal arguments about how the test should apply were rejected by the Tribunal.
⚖️ Strike 2: eSafety bizarrely argued that Chris’ actual intention didn’t matter — only what they argued his intention was. The Tribunal disagreed. This is a significant win that will help ensure eSafety respect the free speech rights of many others.
Ultimately, the Tribunal’s decided “intent” sits somewhere between a legal fiction and actual mindset. Much better than what eSafety had argued though still some wiggle room for bureaucrats to decide what you “meant,” regardless of what you say.
⚖️ Strike 3: The Commissioner tried to lower her burden of proof to a mere “real chance.” The Tribunal slapped that down — saying the legal standard is “more probable than not.”
The Tribunal reviewed the post’s context-and rightly found Chris always uses accurate pronouns, not from malice, but because he believes “doing otherwise has implications for the rights and safety of women and children” That’s exactly what’s at stake:the freedom to speak truth.💯
eSafety’s (taxpayer funded) experts also came in for a hard time. An aspect of Prof Graham’s report was described as “unconvincing” and it was “difficult to draw any assistance” from large parts.
As for another expert – I don’t think I can put it much better than the Tribunal 👇
