The United States has criticised Australia for pressuring American social media giant 𝕏 to censor a post by Canadian gender ideology critic Chris Elston, more popularly known as Billboard Chris.
The US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor cited “concerning” behaviour by Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in ordering Elon Musk’s platform to remove Mr. Elston’s post.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International reported the Canadian used “biologically accurate” pronouns to describe an Australian activist in a 2024 post that has been “geo-blocked” in Australia following the order.
“US INTERVENTION A BEACON OF LIBERTY”
Mr. Elston who campaigns against puberty blockers being given to children reacted to the gag order by saying: “If our free speech can’t be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”
He welcomed the US intervention, calling it a “beacon of liberty,” and adding: “It’s tremendous to have the State Department support what we all know is true: free speech is a fundamental right, critical to a democratic society”
Both 𝕏 and Billboard Chris, who was supported by ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA), legally challenged the decision at a Melbourne tribunal last month.
Its verdict is expected later this year.
WHAT THE US STATE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY SAID
The Australian rebuke was included in a scathing statement about the global censorship of American businesses.
The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.
Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened 𝕏 for hosting political speech; Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required 𝕏 to remove a post criticising an individual for promoting gender ideology.
Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety.
The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”
That could be interpreted as a signal that US trade negotiations with Australia may hinge on the Albanese government’s respect for free speech.
WHAT WAS THE ‘OFFENSIVE” POST ALL ABOUT
At the Administrative Review Tribunal hearing in Melbourne, Ms. Inman Grant defended her decision to censor Mr. Elston’s post by claiming that his use of biologically accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, in accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act.
The post in question shared a Daily Mail article headlined Kinky Secrets Of UN Trans Expert REVEALED which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and World Health Organization (WHO) expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.
In sharing the article, Mr. Elston added the comment:
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.
WHAT ‘BILLBOARD CHRIS’ SAID IN DEFENCE OF HIS POST
In his evidence, Billboard Chris told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of his post was a specific comment on the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world.
Speaking on the witness stand, he added: “It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body. Children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”
When asked why he chose to post on this matter, he explained: “Because the World Health Organization has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.”
“AUSTRALIA’S CENSORSHIP IS A PATRONISING AFFRONT TO DEMOCRACY”
Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution.
In a statement, Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, said: “The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronising affront to the principles of democracy.”
“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis.”
“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”
WHY THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT FOR CHRISTIANS
The Daily Declaration reports Ms. Inman-Grant, a dual American-Australian citizen, has previously dismissed the First Amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing free speech as something that “does not apply in Australia.”
The Christian news outlet adds she also told a World Economic Forum panel in Davos that she believed human rights and freedom of speech are in need of “recalibration.”
Kurt Mahlburg concludes in his Daily Declaration article: “For Christians and defenders of traditional values, the case of Billboard Chris represents more than just a social media dispute.”
“it is a defining test of whether Biblical truth can still be proclaimed in the public square.”
