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

[StealthSpinach]

“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

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.”

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.

“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.

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.

“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.

The tweet:

https://twitter.com/BillboardChris/status/1772435637884403749/photo/1

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

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.

Teddy Cook? This Teddy Cook?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html

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.

I really cannot see how any serious harm could have resulted

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

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

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?

Well quite. Trans Teflon strikes again.

Billboard Chris got it 100% correct.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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