Elon Musk victory in war on strict Australian web laws

The Advertiser

02-07-2025

"A win for free speech in Australia."
This is what Elon Musk's lawyers have said after overturning government orders blocking a post claiming transgender people belonged in a mental institution.
Musk's social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, and Canadian activist Christopher Elston have been in a legal battle with the eSafety Commissioner.
Mr Elston reposted a Daily Mail article in February 2024 about Australian transgender man Teddy Cook and his appointment by the World Health Organisation to advise on issues of transgender and non-binary people's health.
In the post, Mr Elston called Mr Cook a female and said trans people "belong in psychiatric wards".
When Mr Cook came across the post, he made a complaint to the eSafety Commissioner which moved to block the post.
Mr Elston's words were allegedly degrading to Mr Cook and the broader transgender community, the online regulator said.
The activist's X account allegedly had more than 395,000 followers and the post was viewed 377,000 times and reposted 6,000 times in less than a fortnight.
After X and Mr Elston challenged the notice, the Administrative Review Tribunal was asked to determine whether an everyday person would consider the post as cyber-abuse.
Tribunal member Damien O'Donovan found late on Tuesday that the post did not intend to cause serious harm.
However, he found the ordinary person would take away that transgender people belong in a psychiatric ward.
"The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views Mr Elston has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent," Mr O'Donovan said.
X, through its lawyers at Thompson Geer, welcomed the decision.
"This is another example of the eSafety Commissioner overreaching in her role and making politically motivated decisions to moderate what she considers Australians should and shouldn't read and hear from the outside world."
Mr Elston said the decision sends a clear message to the government that it "does not have the authority to silence peaceful expression."
In the tribunal hearing, lawyers for Mr Elston denied he intended to cause serious harm.
The Canadian said he didn't know Mr Cook, reposted public information and usually misgendered people in his posts.
A spokesperson for the eSafety Commissioner noted the decision saying the regulator would continue to take seriously the responsibility of amending harms and protecting Australians.
The decision is the most recent chapter in a long-running legal battle between the social media giant and online safety regulator.
In May, the commissioner took X to court wanting the platform to do more to keep Australians safe online.
The regulator also issued a penalty of $610,500 to the social media giant in February 2023, alleging it failed to adequately respond to questions about how it tackled harmful content on its platform, including child sexual abuse material.
X is disputing the fine.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
"A win for free speech in Australia."
This is what Elon Musk's lawyers have said after overturning government orders blocking a post claiming transgender people belonged in a mental institution.
Musk's social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, and Canadian activist Christopher Elston have been in a legal battle with the eSafety Commissioner.
Mr Elston reposted a Daily Mail article in February 2024 about Australian transgender man Teddy Cook and his appointment by the World Health Organisation to advise on issues of transgender and non-binary people's health.
In the post, Mr Elston called Mr Cook a female and said trans people "belong in psychiatric wards".
When Mr Cook came across the post, he made a complaint to the eSafety Commissioner which moved to block the post.
Mr Elston's words were allegedly degrading to Mr Cook and the broader transgender community, the online regulator said.
The activist's X account allegedly had more than 395,000 followers and the post was viewed 377,000 times and reposted 6,000 times in less than a fortnight.
After X and Mr Elston challenged the notice, the Administrative Review Tribunal was asked to determine whether an everyday person would consider the post as cyber-abuse.
Tribunal member Damien O'Donovan found late on Tuesday that the post did not intend to cause serious harm.
However, he found the ordinary person would take away that transgender people belong in a psychiatric ward.
"The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views Mr Elston has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent," Mr O'Donovan said.
X, through its lawyers at Thompson Geer, welcomed the decision.
"This is another example of the eSafety Commissioner overreaching in her role and making politically motivated decisions to moderate what she considers Australians should and shouldn't read and hear from the outside world."
Mr Elston said the decision sends a clear message to the government that it "does not have the authority to silence peaceful expression."
In the tribunal hearing, lawyers for Mr Elston denied he intended to cause serious harm.
The Canadian said he didn't know Mr Cook, reposted public information and usually misgendered people in his posts.
A spokesperson for the eSafety Commissioner noted the decision saying the regulator would continue to take seriously the responsibility of amending harms and protecting Australians.
The decision is the most recent chapter in a long-running legal battle between the social media giant and online safety regulator.
In May, the commissioner took X to court wanting the platform to do more to keep Australians safe online.
The regulator also issued a penalty of $610,500 to the social media giant in February 2023, alleging it failed to adequately respond to questions about how it tackled harmful content on its platform, including child sexual abuse material.
X is disputing the fine.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
"A win for free speech in Australia."
This is what Elon Musk's lawyers have said after overturning government orders blocking a post claiming transgender people belonged in a mental institution.
Musk's social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, and Canadian activist Christopher Elston have been in a legal battle with the eSafety Commissioner.
Mr Elston reposted a Daily Mail article in February 2024 about Australian transgender man Teddy Cook and his appointment by the World Health Organisation to advise on issues of transgender and non-binary people's health.
In the post, Mr Elston called Mr Cook a female and said trans people "belong in psychiatric wards".
When Mr Cook came across the post, he made a complaint to the eSafety Commissioner which moved to block the post.
Mr Elston's words were allegedly degrading to Mr Cook and the broader transgender community, the online regulator said.
The activist's X account allegedly had more than 395,000 followers and the post was viewed 377,000 times and reposted 6,000 times in less than a fortnight.
After X and Mr Elston challenged the notice, the Administrative Review Tribunal was asked to determine whether an everyday person would consider the post as cyber-abuse.
Tribunal member Damien O'Donovan found late on Tuesday that the post did not intend to cause serious harm.
However, he found the ordinary person would take away that transgender people belong in a psychiatric ward.
"The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views Mr Elston has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent," Mr O'Donovan said.
X, through its lawyers at Thompson Geer, welcomed the decision.
"This is another example of the eSafety Commissioner overreaching in her role and making politically motivated decisions to moderate what she considers Australians should and shouldn't read and hear from the outside world."
Mr Elston said the decision sends a clear message to the government that it "does not have the authority to silence peaceful expression."
In the tribunal hearing, lawyers for Mr Elston denied he intended to cause serious harm.
The Canadian said he didn't know Mr Cook, reposted public information and usually misgendered people in his posts.
A spokesperson for the eSafety Commissioner noted the decision saying the regulator would continue to take seriously the responsibility of amending harms and protecting Australians.
The decision is the most recent chapter in a long-running legal battle between the social media giant and online safety regulator.
In May, the commissioner took X to court wanting the platform to do more to keep Australians safe online.
The regulator also issued a penalty of $610,500 to the social media giant in February 2023, alleging it failed to adequately respond to questions about how it tackled harmful content on its platform, including child sexual abuse material.
X is disputing the fine.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
"A win for free speech in Australia."
This is what Elon Musk's lawyers have said after overturning government orders blocking a post claiming transgender people belonged in a mental institution.
Musk's social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, and Canadian activist Christopher Elston have been in a legal battle with the eSafety Commissioner.
Mr Elston reposted a Daily Mail article in February 2024 about Australian transgender man Teddy Cook and his appointment by the World Health Organisation to advise on issues of transgender and non-binary people's health.
In the post, Mr Elston called Mr Cook a female and said trans people "belong in psychiatric wards".
When Mr Cook came across the post, he made a complaint to the eSafety Commissioner which moved to block the post.
Mr Elston's words were allegedly degrading to Mr Cook and the broader transgender community, the online regulator said.
The activist's X account allegedly had more than 395,000 followers and the post was viewed 377,000 times and reposted 6,000 times in less than a fortnight.
After X and Mr Elston challenged the notice, the Administrative Review Tribunal was asked to determine whether an everyday person would consider the post as cyber-abuse.
Tribunal member Damien O'Donovan found late on Tuesday that the post did not intend to cause serious harm.
However, he found the ordinary person would take away that transgender people belong in a psychiatric ward.
"The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views Mr Elston has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent," Mr O'Donovan said.
X, through its lawyers at Thompson Geer, welcomed the decision.
"This is another example of the eSafety Commissioner overreaching in her role and making politically motivated decisions to moderate what she considers Australians should and shouldn't read and hear from the outside world."
Mr Elston said the decision sends a clear message to the government that it "does not have the authority to silence peaceful expression."
In the tribunal hearing, lawyers for Mr Elston denied he intended to cause serious harm.
The Canadian said he didn't know Mr Cook, reposted public information and usually misgendered people in his posts.
A spokesperson for the eSafety Commissioner noted the decision saying the regulator would continue to take seriously the responsibility of amending harms and protecting Australians.
The decision is the most recent chapter in a long-running legal battle between the social media giant and online safety regulator.
In May, the commissioner took X to court wanting the platform to do more to keep Australians safe online.
The regulator also issued a penalty of $610,500 to the social media giant in February 2023, alleging it failed to adequately respond to questions about how it tackled harmful content on its platform, including child sexual abuse material.
X is disputing the fine.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578