Foreign Censorship on U.S. Social Media Platforms – Australian Case Validates Vance’s Concerns

  • Melbourne Tribunal to hear “monumental” free speech challenge from 31st March-4th April
  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian “Billboard Chris” bringing case against Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology
  • VP Vance, Secretary of State Rubio have raised repeated concerns about the impact of censorial foreign governments on American-based social media platforms

MELBOURNE (27 March 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne is set to hear a “monumental” free speech case next week, commencing March 31st, as concerns mount worldwide about online censorship.

Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), alongside Elon Musk’s U.S.-based social media platform “X”, will challenge the Australian authorities’ decision to censor an online post criticizing gender ideology across Australia.

The case demonstrates the tangible reality of global censorship concerns raised repeatedly by Vice-President J.D. Vance, both at a Munich Security Conference in February and in a press conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Speaking about free speech restrictions in the context of the UK, Vance said:

“We also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens.”

Speaking recently in Paris, Vance added that while “we want to ensure the internet is a safe place”, restrictions on online content should focus on protecting children from predatory abuse, rather than preventing “a grown man or woman from accessing an opinion that the government thinks is misinformation.”

The actions of the eSafety Commissioner demonstrate a concerning rise in censorship in the digital age – where bureaucracies can subjectively interpret which speech is deemed “offensive” or “wrong”, leading to the curtailment of free speech rights.

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said:

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing 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.”

Chris Elston, a.k.a “Billboard Chris”, commented:

“My case is an example of the free speech crisis here in Australia and across the West. More and more, the public is waking up to the fact that puberty blockers are a form of child abuse. Gender ideology can only thrive under censorship – when we are deprived of shining a light on the madness.”

THE CASE: Freedom of online speech in the balance

On 28 February 2024, Elston took to “X” to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED”.

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the appointment of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commissioner, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne.

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions. 

The case will be heard in Melbourne for five days on the week beginning March 31st.

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here. 

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

STATEMENT: Chilean Senate protects children, takes a stand against dangerous gender ideology

  • Chile joins a growing group of countries taking steps to reject gender ideology as Senate passes critical law prohibiting the use of public funds for “gender transition” for minors.  
  • Law to be confirmed unless challenged by the Constitutional Court in the coming weeks. 

WASHINGTON, DC (3 December 2024) Chile has joined a growing group of countries that are taking steps to reject gender ideology. 

The following statement may be attributed to Tomás Henríquez, Director of Advocacy for Latin America:  

“The Chilean Senate has passed a critical law that prohibits the government from spending any public funds on surgical or hormonal interventions for children under the age of 18 for so-called ‘gender/sex reassignment’.  

The first of its kind in Latin America, this sets a major precedent for the protection of children not just in Chile, but also in all Latin American countries. Chile is to be commended for taking an important step in saying no to the dangers of gender ideology.  

Now, other countries must do the same. Every child is precious just as they are and has the absolute right to be safeguarded from a radical ideology that promotes dangerous drugs and surgeries with devastating consequences.” 

BACKGROUND: 

The Senate vote took place following the release of a report from a Chilean Congressional investigative committee that strongly recommended the immediate suspension of all programs related to the so-called “gender transition” of children. 

The report investigated the PAIG program, or Growing with Pride, a government policy aimed at Chileans that expressed “gender identity” confusion. 

From the report: “The PAIG is implemented in 37 hospitals in the country and the psychosocial pairs have the power to carry out family interventions, within educational spaces, referral to hormone therapies, as well as the power to take legal action against ‘resistant parents’ who oppose the gender transition of their children or seek greater prudence when advancing in the different stages of it.” 

The report revealed that a combined 4,142 children and adolescents have entered or have been treated in the PAIG program, “despite the lack of consensus in the medical-scientific community and the setback in several European countries on applying treatments.” 

The law passed in the Chilean Senate on 20 November 2024. The government had communicated it would study mounting a challenge to the amendment at the Constitutional Court, which may materialize in the coming weeks. 

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

A ‘Culture Conversation’ with Nancy Pearcey, American Christian Author and Apologist

How should Christians respond to the transgender movement?

Nancy Pearcey is a prominent author and Christian apologist who dedicates her scholarship to the intersection of faith and culture. Pearcey explores how Christianity must be lived as a worldview that touches on every area of life.

Pearcey offers a steadfast and courageous witness for today’s Christians, advocating for a conception of the human person as an integrated being, body, and soul, who should be valued accordingly. Our Sophia Kuby sat down with Pearcey to explore how this understanding should inform the Christian response to the issues of our day.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Watch the full interview above:

Q: Arguably, your book Love Thy Body is more relevant today than even when you wrote it in 2018. You identify the dualistic, fragmented view of the person as the key to understanding where we are headed as a society. Why is that?

A: This dualism, this split, may be the most important key to understanding what happens in our culture today. We tend to treat euthanasia, abortion, transgenderism, the hookup culture etc., as individual issues. But if we can recognize the underlying worldview, it will be so much easier to respond because we’re digging deeper as to what’s really driving the secular culture on these issues.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: You explain how [dualism] it’s the same secular worldview that drives euthanasia. How so?

A: For proponents of euthanasia, if you are mentally disabled, if you no longer have a certain level of cortical functioning, then you are no longer a person, even though you’re obviously still human. And at that point, in this view, you’re not a person anymore. You’re only a body.

And so, you can be unplugged—your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, and your organs harvested. So, once again, you see how being human is no longer enough for human rights. You have to achieve a certain level of awareness or cognitive ability in order to earn the status of personhood. And anyone who falls short is considered a non-person. So, we are seeing the emergence of a new category now which is the human non-person.

On the other hand, the pro-life view is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in, you count. You have the full rights as a member of the moral community.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: There is a worldview thread connecting abortion and euthanasia to questions of sexuality. Can you explain?

A: The connecting thread is the division of the body from the person. We see this in the hookup culture. The entire premise is that sex can be purely physical, cut off from the whole person.

The mistake people make is to assume that there are two very distinct elements in a relationship: one emotional and one sexual, and they pretend like there are clean lines between them. There is a fundamental despair stemming from the belief that the body doesn’t mean anything. [It’s] no wonder the hookup culture is leaving behind a trail of wounded people.

People are trying to live out a secular ethic that does not fit who they really are. The Christian ethic is incarnational. And science is on our side. Science has shown the interconnection of body and person, for example, with the discovery of hormones like oxytocin. We are designed to bond. And Scripture teaches that we are embodied spirits. Both body and spirit are part of our identity.

And so, you can be unplugged—your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, and your organs harvested. So, once again, you see how being human is no longer enough for human rights. You have to achieve a certain level of awareness or cognitive ability in order to earn the status of personhood. And anyone who falls short is considered a non-person. So, we are seeing the emergence of a new category now which is the human non-person.

On the other hand, the pro-life view is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in, you count. You have the full rights as a member of the moral community.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: How do you respond to those who hold the view that you can be born into the wrong body?

A: What we need to realize is that it is a profoundly disrespectful view of the body to pit the mind against the body and then say it’s only the mind and feelings that count.

Would God create people to be torn in two conflicting directions like this? Not the Christian God. Things like conflict, self-division, and self-alienation are results of the fall, not creation. And yet today, it’s widely accepted that if somebody feels that sense of inner division, a conflict between the body and the mind, then it is your feelings and desires that count.

The Christian ethic is holistic. The mind and emotions are meant to be in tune with our body. And so, it’s an ethic that overcomes self-division and self-alienation, and ultimately leads to a sense of internal unity, wholeness, and self-integration.

Q: So how does this apply to the worldview driving the transgender movement?

A: This involves the same split view of the person, the same devaluing of the body. Transgender activists argue explicitly that your gender identity has nothing to do with your physical body, with your biological sex.

I watched a BBC documentary that said that at the heart of the debate is the idea that your mind can be at war with your body, and it is the mind that wins. So, in this view, your body has been reduced to a meat skeleton. I recently came across a Kickstarter page for a documentary titled “I Am Not My Body.” That title says it all. My body is not part of my authentic self.

This is a radically separate, divided, fractured, fragmented view of what a person is. That’s the core of what’s being taught to young people all the way down to kindergarten—that your body has no meaning at all.

Q: How should Christians respond to this extreme devaluation of the body?

A: Even secular people are saying that transgenderism involves body hatred. So what this means is that Christians have a wonderful opportunity to show that a Biblical ethic expresses a positive view of the way God made us as physically embodied beings, that the biological correspondence between male and female is not some evolutionary accident. It’s part of the original creation that God pronounced very good.  

There is a turning point for people who identify as transgender when they can say: “I finally came to trust that God had made me my sex for a reason, and I wanted to honor my body by living in accord with the Creator’s design.” This is a beautiful language. This is not guilt, shame, and self-loathing. This is positive: I want to honor my body.

So, number one, we must learn how to use positive language. “Live in tune with your body. Live in harmony with the Creator’s design.” Let’s face it, Christians are known for having a negative message. We have to start with a positive message that our body is God’s creation, and that a Biblical ethic shows us how to honor and respect it.

Next, we have to be proactive. I’ve told Brandon’s story. Brandon was sort of the classic case before he was even walking. His babysitter told his mother, “He’s too good to be a boy,” by which she meant he was gentle and sweet-natured. By elementary school, he was coming to his parents weeping, saying: “I don’t fit in anywhere,” because he didn’t feel like a boy.

By his early teens, he was scouring the internet for information on sex reassignment surgery. So, what did his parents do? They made sure he knew they loved him just the way he was. They did not try to change him.

They said it is perfectly acceptable to be a gentle, sensitive boy. It does not mean you are really a girl. His parents said it may mean that God has gifted you for one of the caring professions like counselor or healthcare worker. His parents’ favorite line, which they said over and over again, was: “It’s not you that’s wrong. It’s the stereotypes that are wrong.”

Brandon did not transition. He did finally accept that it is scientifically impossible to actually change your sex.

Q: As we assess the toll that these ideologies are taking across the world, is there hope? What does the future hold? 

There is good news. First, there are an increasing number of people who are “de-transitioning.” People who have gone through this are turning around and accusing the clinics of fast-tracking them. Some are bringing the clinics to court.

There are a couple of cases working their way through the courts in the US, and some states are banning medical interventions for minors. European countries are changing their policy. They are pulling back in England, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, France, Wales, Scotland, Germany, and the Netherlands.  

We must continue to assert the revolutionary nature of Christianity, which teaches that the material world is made by the supreme deity, who is a good God, and therefore it is intrinsically good. Yes, the world is fallen, but the fall is like a beautiful masterpiece that a child takes a magic marker and scribbles on.  

Yes, it’s defaced, but the original beauty still shines through. And that’s what we need to help people see—that the world still shows the original beauty of God’s creation. The Incarnation is the ultimate affirmation of the dignity of the human body. And what’s more, when Jesus was executed on a Roman cross, he did escape the physical world, as Gnosticism teaches we should aspire to do. But what did he do then? He came back in a physical body—a bodily resurrection.

God is not going to scrap the material world as if He made a mistake the first time around.  

He’s going to restore it. The resurrection of the body, as affirmed in the Apostles Creed, is an astonishingly high view of the physical world. There’s nothing like it in any other religion or philosophy.