Freedom of speech has emerged victorious in Australia. A tribunal in Melbourne has decisively overturned the Australian government’s ill-conceived censorship order against Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston, an outspoken advocate who dared to challenge the prevailing gender ideology with hard facts.
In 2024, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner made a grave mistake, deeming a simple post by Elston “adult cyber abuse” under the Online Safety Act. This post linked a publicly available article discussing a WHO appointee, mentioning their biologically accurate pronouns. There were no threats, no private details—only the truth, which the government found inconvenient. Initially, X resisted censorship but ultimately succumbed, geo-blocking the post nationally while it filed an appeal.
Billboard Chris refused to be silenced. With the robust legal backing of ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, he took a stand against the eSafety Commissioner’s misguided restrictions. His victory is nothing less than a triumph for everyone who cherishes the right to speak freely.
The Administrative Review Tribunal’s ruling revealed what should have been crystal clear from the start: Elston’s post aimed no harm, was unlikely to be seen by the complainant, and aligned with his longstanding message—children are not born in the wrong body. The assertion that this constituted any form of abuse was struck down.
The Tribunal underscored a crucial truth that the eSafety Commissioner conveniently overlooked: this case is not about harassment or abuse. It’s fundamentally about preserving our right to engage in public discourse on pivotal issues. To suppress this conversation using the flimsy guise of “cyber abuse” is intellectually dishonest and incendiary.
The absurdity of the government’s arguments became evident during the hearing. Elston merely shared information that was already public about a transgender activist involved with the WHO. Instead of championing transparency, officials demanded censorship—an outrageous overreach that contravenes basic democratic principles.
The Tribunal’s decision was emphatic: while the post may have been phrased provocatively, it expressed views consistent with Elston’s public stance and lacked any malicious intent. It concluded that a reasonable person would not see the post as intended to cause serious harm.
This case transcends individual speech rights; it sets a precedent for future enforcement actions. The actions of Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, now implicated in a U.S. congressional investigation for collaborating with foreign entities to suppress free speech, highlight a disturbing trend. Reports reveal that the eSafety Commissioner has pressured platforms to censor legitimate discourse in a coordinated effort to regulate speech—not just in Australia, but worldwide.
The implications are dire. If the tribunal had sided with the eSafety Commissioner, we would have seen an emboldened censorship campaign, allowing the government to suppress speech without regard for jurisdiction. This is exactly what the eSafety Commissioner seeks to achieve.
Fortunately, Billboard Chris’ hard-fought victory serves as a rallying cry against tyranny. He stood firm against a system designed to silence him, and he triumphed. Yet, the same forces of censorship at play in Australia are plotting similar suppression tactics everywhere.
On the same day as Chris’ victory, the European Union escalated its assault on free speech by enhancing the Digital Services Act, which allows bureaucrats to control online dialogue under the pretense of “safety.” This legislation empowers officials to impose crippling penalties on platforms failing to comply with vague and oppressive content removal mandates.
The threats to free speech are vast and growing, but Billboard Chris’ victory demonstrates that the tide can be turned. Courageous individuals, who stand firm against the censorship complex, can prevail. Their victories pave the way for future defenders of free speech. We must draw inspiration from this valiant Canadian father and actively resist censorship if we are to safeguard our freedoms.
