U.S. Government calls out Australian authorities for blocking online speech; Musk, “Billboard Chris” win case to overturn censorship of biologically-accurate “X” post 

  • Investigative report by the House Judiciary Committee exposes Australian “eSafety Commissioner” Julie Inman-Grant’s co-ordination with international bodies to censor lawful online speech
  • eSafety Commissioner lost battle to censor post using biologically-accurate pronouns against Musk, Billboard Chris this week

Washington/Sydney (2 July 2025) – The Australian government’s authority to censor opinions expressed on “X” is under scrutiny after an investigation by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee into the activities of Australia’s “eSafety Commissioner”, Julie Inman-Grant. 

The groundbreaking report into international state censorship highlights concerns only days before news broke of a legal win for free speech against the same State Office. 

“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which co-ordinated Elston's legal case

Elon Musk’s “X”, and children’s safety campaigner Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), challenged the eSafety Commissioner’s decision to censor a tweet using biologically-accurate pronouns to describe a trangender activist appointed to an “expert” position on gender at the WHO. 

Elston’s post was deemed “cyber abuse” by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which ordered X to remove the content. X initially refused, and later geo-blocked the post in Australia.  

Both X and Elston challenged the order, arguing that the censorship was a violation of the fundamental right to free speech. Elston’s legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International, in conjunction with the Human Rights Law Alliance in Australia. The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne held a week-long hearing on the case commencing March 31, 2025.  

The Tribunal found that the eSafety Commissioner made the wrong decision in determining Elston’s post was “cyber abuse” and set aside the decision.    

In his finding, Deputy President O’Donovan noted compelling words from Elston’s own testimony to evidence his satisfaction that Elston was not engaging in abuse, but rather, expressing his deeply-held convictions about biological truth: 

“He [Chris] does not believe that a man can transition to being a woman or vice versa. He summarises his position as follows:  

“Because I believe that sex is immutable, I am personally convicted that I will not use incorrect pronouns to describe any person, including trans-identifying people who identify as the opposite sex. I will use their preferred names, but I only use sex-based pronouns, because I don’t think it is loving, progressive, or ethical to lie to a person and affirm that they are something that they are not. I believe that calling a man a woman (and vice versa) is not only untrue, but also has implications for the rights and safety of women and children.”  

[141] “I am satisfied that it is his universal practice to refer to a transgender person by the pronouns that correspond to their biological sex at birth. I am also satisfied that when he classifies a person as either a man or a woman, he determines which classification to use by reference to their biological sex at birth, rather than the gender related characteristics that they currently express. I am satisfied that he believes doing otherwise has implications for the rights and safety of women and children…” 

In May, the U.S. State Department condemned the eSafety Commissioner’s actions as part of a broader global trend toward coercive state censorship.   

U.S. Government reports concerns about international censorship efforts

The new report released this week from the House Judiciary Committee reveals new evidence showing how an international WEF-linked advertising consortium, the “Global Alliance for Responsible Media” (GARM), leveraged its vast advertising power to coordinate censorship efforts. The GARM was found to be working not only with major global advertisers, but also with foreign regulators, including Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman‑Grant, to suppress disfavoured online speech. 

In published emails, the report shows that Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman‑Grant explicitly relied on GARM’s insights, stating it “ha[d] some very powerful levers at [its] disposal” and requesting updates to inform her regulatory decisions.  

The Committee’s report concludes that GARM’s coordinated international efforts—with its commercial might and foreign regulator collusion—constrain citizens’ ability to access content freely, contravening free speech principles, undermining consumer choice, and posing serious antitrust concerns. 

Comments and reactions

Reacting to the ruling upholding his freedom to speak the truth on “X”, children’s safety campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston said: 

“I’m grateful that truth and common sense have prevailed.  

“This decision sends a clear message that the government does not have authority to silence peaceful expression.  

“My mission is to speak the truth about gender ideology, protecting children across the world from its dangers.  

“With this ruling, the court has upheld my right to voice my convictions—a right that belongs to every one of us.  

My post should never have been censored in Australia, but my hope is that authorities will now think twice before resorting to censorship”.   

Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which co-ordinated Elston’s legal challenge said: 

“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship.  

“In this case, the Australian government alarmingly censored the peaceful expression of a Canadian citizen on an American-owned platform, evidence of the expansive reach of censorial forces, even beyond national borders.  

“Today, free speech has prevailed. This is a victory not just for Billboard Chris, but for every Australian—and indeed every citizen who values the fundamental right to free speech.” 

In a post responding to the news, “X” Global Government Affairs Team said: 

“In a victory for free speech, X has won its legal challenge against the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s demand to censor a user’s post about gender ideology or face an approximately $800,000 AUD fine. The post is part of a broader political discussion involving issues of public interest that are subject to legitimate debate.  This is a decisive win for free speech in Australia and around the world. X will continue to fight against coercive state censorship and to defend our users’ rights to free speech.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Chris Elston; Chris Elston with ADF International’s Lois McLatchie Miller at the Sydney Opera House; Chris Elston with the ADF International team who co-ordinated his legal case

Life at Risk: A Defining Week for the UK 

March for Life UK

In the span of just five days, the British Parliament took two deeply troubling steps that threaten serious consequences for the legal protection of human life.

On Tuesday, 17 June, Members of Parliament (MPs) voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion — removing all criminal penalties for women who end their pregnancies at any stage. This decision eliminates essential legal protections for both mothers and babies, including for dangerous at-home abortions that take the lives of fully viable babies up to birth.

Just three days later, on Friday, 20 June, MPs also voted to move forward with a bill that would legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, empowering doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to those deemed to have less than six months to live.

Together, these decisions send a deeply unsettling message: that life is only worth protecting when it is considered supposedly healthy, wanted, or useful.

March for Life UK

Scripture reminds us that persecution is part of being a Christian, but few realize the scale of it today. Around the world, 1 in 7 Christians face harassment, violence, or worse simply for their faith. In Africa, this number rises to 1 in 5.

Among the persecuted are Egypt’s Christians, who live in a land of ancient wonders and rich history—yet face daily discrimination, harsh restrictions, and constant pressure to hide their faith. Despite Egypt’s status as a cultural and historical giant in Africa, it remains an ongoing struggle for many believers.

In March, I travelled to Egypt to meet with some of these brave Christians and their dedicated lawyers. Together with allied lawyers on the ground, ADF International is committed to ensuring that our brothers and sisters in Egypt are free to live and speak the truth.

Abortion Up to Birth — After Just Two Hours of Debate

The vote to decriminalise abortion took place with only two hours of debate — despite the sweeping implications of the proposal.

While current UK law already allows abortion beyond 24 weeks in a range of broadly defined circumstances, this amendment removed critical legal protections for viable babies in the womb and for women in difficult situations.

Supporters presented the move as an act of compassion toward women, but in reality, only 1% of British women support abortion until birth.

What the law now permits is not just rare: it is extreme. It removes protections that help prevent dangerous, self-managed, late-term abortions and leaves women to face serious risks alone, often in desperation.

This is not compassion. It is abandonment.

Assisted Suicide: A Dangerous Precedent

The bill to legalise assisted suicide follows the same deeply flawed logic. If passed, it will enshrine into law the false logic that ending a life can be an acceptable form of care. While its advocates insist it will be accompanied by “safeguards,” evidence from other countries tells a different story.

Take Canada, for example. Less than ten years after assisted suicide became legal, it now accounts for 4% of all deaths nationwide — a figure that continues to climb. Vulnerable people, especially those who are elderly or disabled, report feeling pressured toward death when what they truly need is support, dignity, and community.

Once a healthcare system begins to treat death as a solution, it becomes the cheaper, easier, and ultimately, default response.

A Culture of Abandonment — Not Autonomy

Both the abortion amendment and the assisted suicide bill were framed as measures that expand personal freedom. But in truth, they represent a profound abandonment — wrapped in the language of choice.

When the law permits abortion at 35 weeks, or offers lethal drugs in place of palliative care, it tells society that life is no longer sacred. Instead, the right to life is treated as negotiable — granted only to those society deems worthy.

A Better Vision for Britain

But this is not the only way forward.

There is another Britain — one that values every human life, from the youngest child in the womb to the most fragile person nearing life’s end. It is a Britain shaped by the truth that every person bears God’s image and possesses inherent dignity.

Both measures now go to the House of Lords. While the abortion amendment cannot be fully blocked, it can still be challenged and delayed. The assisted suicide bill, meanwhile, faces opposition from many peers who have pledged to resist its advance.

The Lords must give these bills the scrutiny they lacked in the Commons — and ask the hard questions others ignored.

This is a moment that calls for moral clarity. For people of faith to respond — not only in Parliament, but in practice. By supporting mothers in crisis. By walking with the dying. By upholding the dignity of the disabled. And by telling a different story: that every life is a gift, and that no one is beyond the reach of love.

Britain is facing a crossroads. And now, more than ever, we must have the courage to say no to death — and yes to life, in every stage, and every circumstance.