Australia’s eSafety ‘Considering’ Request to Testify at US Committee About Censorship

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant is “considering” whether to agree to a request from U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.

The Committee is looking into how foreign laws compel U.S. companies to censor speech in the United States.

Jordan, who is chair of the Committee, wrote to the U.S.-born Inman Grant requesting her testimony.

The letter from Rep. Jordan, shared on X by academic Michael Shellenberger, claims the eSafety Commissioner is a threat to free speech.

“Your expansive interpretation and enforcement of Australia’s Online Safety Act, including your claim of extraterritorial jurisdiction to censor free speech outside of Australia, directly threatens American speech,” the letter stated.

“Global content takedown orders are concerning because they harm the free speech rights of those outside of Australia’s jurisdiction and set the precedent that other government’s may do the same.”

In October, the eSafety Commissioner issued removal notices to X and Meta in relation to raw footage of the killings of Iryna Zarutska, Charlie Kirk, and the beheading of a Dallas motel manager.

Jordan also outlined concerns of possible collusion “with pro-censorship entities in the United States to facilitate Australia’s, and other global censorship regimes.”

“According to documents obtained by the Committee, you recently gave the keynote at a non-public event at the Stanford University on Sept. 25, 2025,” he said.

Rep. Jordan said the event brought together Silicon Valley experts along with policymakers to compliance and enforcement of online safety.

“Put plainly, the roundtable sought to facilitate cooperation with global censorship by bringing together foreign officials who have directly targeted American speech and represent a serious threat to the First Amendment.”

eSafety’s Response

In response, an eSafety spokesperson told The Epoch Times the commissioner is accountable to Australia’s communications minister and federal Parliament, not the U.S. Congress.

eSafety noted it only required social media companies geo-block content in Australia, not overseas.

“In the case of removal notices, eSafety considers geo-blocking to be a reasonable step,” an eSafety spokesperson added.

“This was most recently demonstrated through our acceptance of geo-blocking in the Charlie Kirk, Zarutska, and Nagamallaiah murders where content is illegal to display to Australians, but not to others.”

eSafety said there was nothing they were doing that prevented American companies from displaying “whatever they want to Americans.”

“Freedom of political communication is a basic democratic principle in Australia. Australia’s Parliament, like other jurisdictions, has determined certain categories of material—such as the depiction of child sexual abuse or the promotion of terrorism—fall outside that implied freedom,” eSafety said.

eSafety also noted the request from Jordan was “voluntary” and for a recorded testimony.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner is also overseeing the social media ban for under 16 children and has issued industry codes to search engines and tech companies to stop young Australian from seeing “illegal and restricted online content.”

Regarding the Stanford meeting, the commission said Australia’s eSafety representatives often meet with global counterparts like NGOs, academics, regulators, and lawmakers.