Tribunal Overturns Ban on Post Criticising Transgender WHO Appointee

The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) has overruled an order from Australia’s eSafety commissioner for the social media platform X to remove a post by a prominent Canadian activist.

Chris Elston, otherwise known as “Billboard Chris,” criticised the appointment of female-to-male trans person Teddy Cook to a World Health Organisation (WHO) panel in a post on X.

“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,” Elston wrote.

Elston’s post included scantily clad images of Cook which had been shared on social media.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant had ordered the “offensive” post be removed from view within Australia amid a threat of a $782,500 fine, an order which Elon Musk’s X complied with initially, but vowed to fight it.

The commissioner’s stance was challenged by both X and Elston.

The results of that decision were handed down on the evening of July 1 when the ART found that Elston’s post did not fit the definition of “cyber abuse material targeted at an Australian adult.”

The tribunal’s Deputy President Damien O’Donovan found no reason for the post to be removed.

“The person who posted the material and the platform on which it was posted have both challenged the decision of the regulator to issue a removal notice,” he said, according to an excerpt featured on Elston’s post.

“The broad question to be answered is whether the post meets the statutory definition of cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult.

“The more focussed question is whether I can be satisfied that the necessary intention to cause serious harm to the subject of the post has been established.

“Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that it has. Consequently, the decision of the eSafety commissioner to issue a removal notice is set aside.”

O’Donovan found Elston’s messaging showed no malicious intent towards Cook personally.

“You know what this means, Australia. You are perfectly free to call a man a man and a woman a woman. It’s not misgendering, and it’s not cyber-abuse,” Elston wrote on X.

Tribunal’s Guidance Welcomed by eSafety

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner told The Epoch Times they were aware of the ART’s decision.

“This is the first case before the tribunal seeking review of a decision where eSafety assessed the material met the criteria for adult cyber abuse,” they said.

“eSafety welcomes the guidance provided by the tribunal on the statutory test for adult cyber abuse.

“We will continue to take seriously the responsibility of remediating online harms and protecting Australians from serious online harms.”

Global Religious Rights Group Welcomes Decision

Barrister Rob Clarke and director of advocacy for ADF International applauded the decision.

“It’s a landmark decision for free speech and online expression in Australia that will shape how the law is applied in Australia and impact similar cases beyond,” he wrote on X.

Clarke said the deputy president’s clarification of the importance of there being “intent” ensured takedown orders were not misused.

“Ultimately, the tribunal’s decided ‘intent’ sits somewhere between a legal fiction and actual mindset. Much better than what eSafety had argued, though still some wiggle room for bureaucrats to decide what you ‘meant,’ regardless of what you say.”