Australian eSafety Commissioner vs Elon Musk - Forced removal of post on X that was “harmful” to a TRA

We just don't know...

Moira Deeming got a good judge, Billboard Chris got a good judge, that bloke fighting the transient of his kid. Why, on God’s green earth, did Salk Grover get Bromwich?

Thanks @StealthSpinach and @Helleofabore . A good result.

I did notice that JIG made no mention of upholding truth and science at the National Press Club last week.

The decision has been handed down.

https://adfinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/AU-tribunal-decisionChris-Elston-case.pdf

Some interesting bits to note.

"Material which a person comes across and finds seriously distressing cannot be the subject of a removal notice just because it is distressing or even seriously distressing."

and

"Second, Mr Elston did not know of Mr Cook prior to publication of the Daily Mail article and prior to the publication of his post. This rules out any personal motivator for trying to harm Mr Cook and significantly reduces the likelihood that the post is intended to harm Mr Cook in particular rather than make the broader political point that Mr Elston has identified. Mr Elston provides an explanation as to why he made the post that is consistent with him doing so for reasons that do not include causing Mr Cook harm. He misgendered Mr Cook because it is his universal practice to refer to people who identify as trans by pronouns and descriptors that correspond to their biological sex at birth. He does this to reflect his belief that doing otherwise involves an untrue statement and because doing otherwise has implications for the rights and safety of women and children."

and

"When the evidence is considered as a whole I am not satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that by making the post Mr Elston intended to cause Mr Cook serious harm. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Elston intended that Mr Cook would receive and read the post, and in light of the broader explanation as to why Mr Elston made the post, I am satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook."

NOTE: I looked to find this judgement linked on the appropriate official site, but it doesn't seem to have been uploaded. So, this is what I have for the moment.

Oh great, inclusion is wonderful, isn't it? Including men leads to women self-excluding. Just what we all want, to get girls into sport.

What @ArabellaScott said.

Who is the 'he' in your statement?

He Billboard Chris
or
He the woman who is advising the World Health Organisation?

I hadn't seen the DM article when I posted. I was referring to the statement by Inman Grant in the article about the supposed harm of implying that transness is a mental health issue, plus Billboard Chris's tweet.

I hope this case is widely reported on and the reports become well known in Australia. I am very glad if Elon Musk is defending it.

I think, in the circumstances, very few would disagree with its content, given the proposal that such an obviously perverted individual (if anyone reports this post, Mumsnet, please remember that this involved promoting animal sexual abuse) should offer healthcare advice to WHO.

Except it is neither harassment nor bullying.

I wonder if the same government is threatening Pornhub with legal action if they don't take down the videos of rapes?

I don’t know who is geo blocking it in Australia. It could be twitter at the request of the Australian authorities.

The subject (apparently being deemed reasonable enough to be given the power to influence policy by the UN) were happy to put their interest in bondage, bestiality etc fully on show in the public sphere. Quite an exhibitionist about it and putting it all out there for everyone to see. Now that it is evident that most people don’t support that sort of stuff, they appear to be trying to act as if they are private about it.

I think it’s quite a public service to make people aware about the calibre and ‘interests’ of people whose hand may be on shaping any public policy. Whether they are coming from someone well intended and reasonable; or not. Especially, if they appear to be some sort of activist engaged in pushing anti-scientific bs.

I have no idea of who these people are.

But in trying to take legal action because of the risk of serious harm, I now am reading about the supposed victim and how he has a pile of things going on which gives cause for concern.

Slow handclap

I think that BC’s tweet is geo blocked in Australia. However, apparently BC then shared a photo/image of the original tweet, and this can be seen in Australia. I think that is the situation.

When you hear something like this happening in China, you’re not surprised. Outside Russia, N Korea, Saudi, China etc, it is a bit of a ‘wow’ moment.

The tweet is still on twitter/X so Elon Musk hasn’t removed it as demanded.
He won’t care if they try to fine him, as he’s not paid the last ‘fine’ they issued Twitter with.

Full interview with Billboard Chris about it. He’s brilliant.

https://twitter.com/billboardchris/status/1775817035638870037?s=42

Ugh, I despair at the sort of revolting people who have inexplicably been given positions of influence by previously credible organisations.

Billboard Chris (in my opinion, and as far as I can tell) seems to have done a public service in bring attention to something which someone apparently freely put into the public square themselves. I can’t see BC’s tweet, but I’d suggest, if it was objectively harmful, it would have had to been pretty gruesome and stomach churning to top that which it referenced. I’d be very surprised indeed if BC’s tweet was anything of the sort.

A person who is that fucked up should not be advising the WHO. I can't stand Billboard Chris but he is perfectly within his rights to draw attention to this quite frankly insane situation.

Yes billboard Chris has made a completely reasonable point there. Insane that a government would demand this is taken down.
the woman made the daily Mail anyway, I’m assuming this wasn’t the only critical comment available on the internet

Billboard Chris got it 100% correct.

Well quite. Trans Teflon strikes again.

So one person posted an image of an animal being sexually abused and another person correctly sexed a person on Twitter, and it's the latter who is deemed harmful?

I thought there was another thread on this a week or so ago, but as I went to reply, the thread disappeared 😟

I really cannot see how any serious harm could have resulted

The only result that seems immediately apparent is that of the Streisand variety.