Billboard Chris vs. Australia: Court battle over censored trans social media post kicks off
Day one of the court battle between Canadian gender critical activist Chris Elston and Australia’s online harms regulator started with a burst of drama, as a trans-identified activist who has a criminal record for issuing death threats against Elston disrupted the court from the virtual online gallery.
The court muted and turned off the camera of Jessica Simpson (formerly Jonathan Yaniv, then Jessica Yaniv), after the Canadian man who now identifies as a woman loudly interjected and displayed a rainbow sign at the beginning of the hearing.
Simpson is infamous for targeting disadvantaged migrant women with bad faith human rights complaints for their unwillingness to wax his scrotum as part of a Brazilian wax service.
Elston, known as Billboard Chris for his activism wearing a sandwich board in public places, is in Australia for a week of court hearings in Melbourne for his case, along with social media platform X, challenging eSafety’s censorship of a post expressing his opinions on gender ideology and Australian trans activist Teddy Cook.
In the post, Elston shared a link to a salacious Daily Mail article about Cook’s X-rated proclivities along with the caption,
“This woman (yes she’s a 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.”
X and Elston are jointly suing eSafety on the premise that Elston’s post was political speech, which is protected under Australian law.
The eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has agreed with this premise in principle, telling a Senate Committee last year, “I’m not going to censor any political commentary about trans or anti-trans material. That is not my role.”
However, in practice, eSafety has censored political commentary on trans and gender-related issues, including a post suggesting that men can’t breastfeed, another about a trans-identified male who allegedly injured female players during a women's football game in NSW, and a post raising awareness of a primary school queer club in Melbourne.
According to Elston’s legal representatives, ADF International, X’s lawyers argued today that there must be leeway for speech which is “offensive,” but not unlawful or subject to censorship.
“Bad manners aren’t a crime. We have to expect adults - public figures no less - to have resilience,” wrote ADF on X.
eSafety, on the other hand, contends that the post constituted cyber-abuse, alleging that it caused “serious harm,” which could include serious psychological harm or distress, but does not include “ordinary emotional reactions” such as distress, grief, fear and anger.
Clouding the matter is the fact that eSafety has had a working relationship with Cook, the subject of Elston’s post. Cook was involved in crafting online resources promoted by the regulator “to help the LGBTIQ+ community safely navigate the online world.”
The hearing will continue throughout the week, with Elston expected to give evidence tomorrow morning 10am Melbourne time.
“I believe there are 2 sexes, 0 genders, and infinite personalities,” Elston said in his statement provided to the court today.
“Children’s bodies should never be medicalised because of gender… and should never be ‘transitioned’ with hormone-blocking drugs and surgeries.”
Since arriving in Australia last week, Elston has stirred up controversy wherever he goes. In Brisbane, Elston was forcibly removed by police officers for standing in the public open-air mall while wearing a billboard saying “Children cannot consent to puberty blockers,” and was fined $806 for “obstructing and unreasonably disturbing a person in the mall,” despite Elston not having approached anyone.
Video 10 mins via @BillboardChris on X
Days later, Elston was ordered by security to leave Federation Square in Melbourne, however when Elston resisted, the order was not followed through.
This is one of several court battles playing out between eSafety and X, which is owned by controversial American tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk.
Last year, eSafety backed out of its legal fight against X over footage of a stabbing incident in inner West Sydney after a judge ruled that Inman Grant’s attempt to enact a global ban on the footage was not reasonable.
In February, eSafety lost a case against Gays Against Groomers activist Celine Baumgarten over its backdoor censorship of her post on X calling attention to a primary school queer club. However, just days ago, eSafety announced that it will appeal this decision.
Register to watch the live stream of the Elston/X/eSafety court hearing here.
To support my work, share, subscribe, and/or make a one-off contribution to my Kofi account. Thanks!
Related Reading
'Highly disturbing': Australian government censorship gone too far
On Australian prime time TV this week, panelists on current affairs show The Project questioned the wisdom of government agencies singling out social media posts for removal, particularly on subjective topics like gender ideology.
'Spectacular backfire': Australian government's attempt to censor trans post draws heat
First it took down tweets on breastfeeding. Now, Australia’s online safety regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, has threatened social media platform X (formerly Twitter) with a hefty fine over a post characterising the trans male identification of a bearded natal female as a psychiatric condition.
Regardless of one's position on "transgenderism" the issue is once again that of freedom of speech.
Nothing that I have seen Chris Elston say or write appears in any way to display hatred or violence towards his targets.
On the other hand, mobs screaming "Gas/where's/f*** the jews" and similar sentiments seemingly repeated ad nauseum at multiple gatherings would appear to fit the description of "hate speech".
I wonder how many posts on this theme have been censored by the eKaren?
Why does Australia have a non Australian regulating its thought laws? Who and how did this eSafety thing become established and funded. Gagging opinion, which essentially what is being enacted by eSafety,…to use phrases often employed by Australian ‘leaders’ a) Doesn’t pass the pub test and b) is very unAustralian!!
Since when have Australians needed to fund a non elected group, led by a non Australian opinion judge to tell them what to think. The whole theme seems an absurdity from Orwellian novel.
Rather than entertaining the outcomes of this group ( and thus giving relevance to the absurdity) why are you not combating the very existence of this weird eSafety body?? I can understand Australians being manipulated by the fear of illness, or coerced by the threat of job loss during the Covid fiasco. But when did Australians lose their backbone to fight the hypocrisy of something like eSafety which is essentially using legislation and public funding to ‘bully’ people into acceding to its judgement of what to think??