Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

36 replies

StealthSpinach · 04/04/2024 13:44

“Billionaire tech titan Elon Musk is taking legal action against the Australian government after eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant forced his tech platform X to remove a post allegedly harmful to a transgender activist.”

“The furore kicked off in late February when Canadian man Chris Elston slammed the proposed appointment of Australian trans activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organisation panel on healthcare delivery.”

“Mr Elston, who goes by the X name Billboard Chris, took aim at WHO’s panel of experts hired to draft policy regarding transpeople, while also misgendering Mr Cook and making other remarks labelled by the eSafety Commissioner as “degrading”.”

“The post was widely viewed and shared in Australia until Ms Inman Grant issued a take-down notice to X on March 22.”

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/elon-musk-sues-esafety-commissioner-after-transgender-takedown-order/news-story/d5525155602b0ddf9d524aff35df7ff6

Tech titan sues Australia in transgender furore

Billionaire tech titan Elon Musk is taking legal action against the Australian government after eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant forced his tech platform X to remove a post allegedly harmful to a transgender activist.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/elon-musk-sues-esafety-commissioner-after-transgender-takedown-order/news-story/d5525155602b0ddf9d524aff35df7ff6

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 04/04/2024 19:14

That's a very measured tweet. This is a person employed by the WHO, they have responsibility.

'Teddy Cook posted an X-rated image of a dog apparently having sex with a man'

But it's 'rude' to suggest this person has mental health issues? I can think of other ways to describe it. No doubt they would be considered 'rude', too. Bestiality is absolutely revolting, and criminal.

'He worked on a 2022 paper in the International Journal of Transgender Health about the sex lives of trans people.
They are more likely to enjoy sex when high from 'using illicit drugs,' Cook and his research colleagues found.'

This person should not be working for WHO or producing guidelines.

Snowypeaks · 04/04/2024 15:38

Good.
Billboard Chris thought Cook was a terrible choice for the role. He said so, in robust language. I think the tweet was rude but to say it would cause serious harm is ridiculous. Julie Inman Grant needs to get herself down to a DV shelter, or listen to women whose exes have shared explicit photos of them online and get some perspective about harm.

Topofthemountain · 04/04/2024 15:25

That probably did cross a line. I'm not sure it was handled in the correct manner though.

SinnerBoy · 04/04/2024 14:48

“If the material only meets one of these two criteria; for example, if the post is offensive but is found to not be intended to cause serious harm, it will not be considered adult cyber abuse under the Act.

I really cannot see how any serious harm could have resulted.

Cazpar · 04/04/2024 14:44

So you agree that this “misgendering” should be punished?
That it is severely abusive material intended to cause serious psychological or physical harm?

Without seeing a copy of the tweet, we have no idea. Have you a copy?

Correctly sexing someone is not abusive, harassment or bullying - it is biological reality.

Rather depends on the context. Simply saying "X is a man" is one thing.

Ranting about a person, claiming they're mentally ill, encouraging others to harass and misgender in order to deliberately upset / antagonise, would fall under abusive bullying behaviour.

using biologically based pronouns should not be deemed severely abusive material that causes serious psychological harm

If all he did was innocently use correct pronouns, I agree with you.

I'd bet the farm that's not all he did though.

Original poster
StealthSpinach · 04/04/2024 14:31

“Under the Act, the term ‘adult cyber abuse’ is reserved for the most severely abusive material intended to cause serious psychological or physical harm.”
**
““This would include material which sets out realistic threats, places people in real danger, is excessively malicious or is unrelenting.”

““eSafety may consider context and material collectively when assessing its overall seriousness.”

““Importantly, the adult cyber abuse scheme does not regulate hurt feelings, purely reputational damage, bad online reviews, strong opinions or banter.””

—————————-
So you agree that this “misgendering” should be punished?
That it is severely abusive material intended to cause serious psychological or physical harm?

I don’t agree - it is “hurt feelings” by someone who happens to belong to a special group…

Correctly sexing someone is not abusive, harassment or bullying - it is biological reality.

I don’t follow Billboard Chris, but using biologically based pronouns should not be deemed severely abusive material that causes serious psychological harm - especially when posts containing targeted rape/death threats/etc directed at women are deemed to not violate standards or meet the threshold for intervention.

Australia is captured, and each time progress against the GI madness is made throughout the world, Australia hurries to to further entrench and protect it to the detriment of women and children especially.

OP posts:
Cazpar · 04/04/2024 13:53

StealthSpinach · 04/04/2024 13:50

3/

“Tech platforms do not always consistently enforce their own rules or hateful conduct policies, which is why parliament voted to establish the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme … so that eSafety could serve as a safety net for Australian adults facing the most grievous forms of online harassment and abuse.”

““The Act defines adult cyber abuse as material targeting a particular Australian adult that is both intended to cause serious harm and is also menacing, harassing or offensive in all circumstances.”

“If the material only meets one of these two criteria; for example, if the post is offensive but is found to not be intended to cause serious harm, it will not be considered adult cyber abuse under the Act.

I can't see anything wrong with this. It's right that harrassment and cyber bullying is dealt with properly.

Original poster
StealthSpinach · 04/04/2024 13:50

3/

“Tech platforms do not always consistently enforce their own rules or hateful conduct policies, which is why parliament voted to establish the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme … so that eSafety could serve as a safety net for Australian adults facing the most grievous forms of online harassment and abuse.”

““The Act defines adult cyber abuse as material targeting a particular Australian adult that is both intended to cause serious harm and is also menacing, harassing or offensive in all circumstances.”

“If the material only meets one of these two criteria; for example, if the post is offensive but is found to not be intended to cause serious harm, it will not be considered adult cyber abuse under the Act.

OP posts:
Original poster
StealthSpinach · 04/04/2024 13:49

2/

“An ordinary reasonable person would conclude that it is likely that the material is intended to cause serious harm to the complainant,” the letter states.”

““This is because the material misgenders the complainant and reiterates that this point is deliberate.
“The material also contains a statement that implicitly equates transgender identity with a psychiatric condition.”

““This statement is deliberately degrading and suggests that all transgender people – and in this case the complainant in particular – have something that is ‘wrong’ about their psychology owing to their gender identity.””

“The commissioner threatened X with a fine of up to $782,500 for any refusal to remove the post within 24 hours.”

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread