The eSafety Commissioner’s use of an informal process to censor social media posts while evading transparency and accountability has been called into question in a significant legal ruling.
Thank you Rebekah, another balanced report, informing us of the undermining process taking place in Govt. I wonder why some people in our country are so keen to dismantle our democracy. But I won't waste my time trying to get into why psychopathy exists. It does, and has, for a long time. It seems the greater the wealth and power the more the humanity dies in many folks. It has been thousands of years that the powerful have tried to enslave the rest of the people. Are we all awake to this yet??
Inmam Grant has much to answer for but refuses to give clear outline How is she holding this "job" doing nothing good being paid for it & creating chaos within
I actually think they do a lot of good. eSafety's initial mandate of protecting children from online abuse is honourable, I think. Also, I would think there are many Australians who have benefited from the image based abuse scheme, which largely deals with revenge porn content. The problems seem to mostly arise from the adult cyber abuse scheme, whereby eSafety makes subjective determinations on politically sensitive issues about what constitutes online harm (eg: 'misgendering) - this has had the most impact on free political communication in Australia, and is the issue for which eSafety is most often in the news for the wrong reasons. Additionally, I do think the Commissioner tends to overstep, such as trying to enforce a global ban on violent content, which was outside of eSafety's jurisdiction.
My impression, here in the U.S. at least, is that "for the children" is simply a cover for a huge foot-in-the-door for real censorship AND for forcing identification of everyone using the Internet by demanding personal info in order to verify their age. That is a terminal attack on privacy, and will most definitely be used against us.
I'm not saying children shouldn't be protected, but censoring social media that is actually harmful for children (who should be strongly monitored and limited by their parents to begin with) must be made the limit of censorship. Censorship of adult comments/posts should not be allowed. I would rather block or ignore trash from other adults than to have censorship be allowed.
Thank you! We need the right of free speech written into our constitution. Otherwise we do not have a healthy society or a healthy democracy. The unsafe, counterproductive ("Safe and Effective") experimental injection mandates are a prime example. Health professionals were and are gagged from doing anything but parrot the .gov narrative. Health professionals who attempted to speak out were deprived of their licences and livelihoods by "public servants". Many Australians were harmed who could otherwise have been alerted to the risks.
I suspect that the shuttering of USAID may see DS funding for people like Inman Grant, chemtrails, 5G towers, bird flu propaganda etc etc etc, now dry up. Let's hope so. There are already reports (in the US, I think) of clear blue skies for the first time in ages since the demise of USAID, which has nothing to do with foreign aid, but whose remit is to create assets - leaders, governments, terrorist organisations etc - by violent means if necessary (e.g. the Maidan coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014), which align with the interests.
So far I have not seen any proof of a connection, but the lack of con (chem) trails immediately following the shut-down of USAID - in many areas from what I have read - would seem to stretch the envelope of "coincidence". Even here in SW Montana (the "boondocks" of this part of our state) seems significant, as we get many daily overflights, some of which are probably military training flights (jets mid-air refueling on the same flight path every time) but others that appear to be cargo aircraft rather than passenger aircraft.
Thanks, Rebekah. This is another example of why Inman Grant is, in my opinion, the most dangerous woman to free speech in Australia... if I'm still allowed to give my opinion...
The nastiest Totalitarian is the one with lipstick. We are held hostage by nasty, NPD over educated, over protected small "L" liberals, the Know-alls-from -hell, whom actually know nothing. Zeal & a furious vagina, vengeance & the smell of hospital soap. Does one need a People Smuggler to bust out of Foryourowngoodistan?
I have a feeling both Celine and Julie (the 'strong' female combatants in this case) would fail to positively impress me, either morally or intellectually.
Interesting how we appeal to judicial verdicts (as if they were handed down by a sage) if they go our way and put the boots in when they do not.:) These verdicts seem (somewhat alarmingly) to be a function of the politics of the judge(s) involved.
Okay, so let us get to the basics of this issue. A person was named in social media. It was therefore made PERSONAL and, in so doing, an important line was crossed.
Imagine if the internet and social media were available back in the 17th century and someone living in Salem had posted that X is a witch and they live at Y. :) I am sure religious nutjob vigil antes (perhaps carrying copies of the Old Testament under their arms) would have seen to it that X ceased to exist.
Given that human psychology has scarcely changed in 2000 years it is not hard to imagine the sort of grief a post such as that of Ms Baumgarten might cause their target.
I am in more sympathy with Jules baby than with Celine wrt to this particular case. I think John Stuart Mill (the supposed grandfather of libertarianism) would have been with me, too.
1. Celine did not post anyone's residential address. The information was of a professional nature and was all publicly listed.
2. Melbourne not being 17thC Salem, the individual in question was not at risk of being burned alive for alleged witchcraft.
3. Murdering someone for any reason (religious or otherwise) is a crime in Australia, thankfully, as is incitement to violence. Evidently, none of these crimes were committed.
4. Additional to incitement to violence, which is illegal, eSafety has statutory provisions for removing content that it determines meets the criteria for Adult Cyber Abuse. Per eSafety's testimony, Celine's post did not meet these criteria.
Having written a thesis based in part on JSM's On Liberty, I cannot disagree with you more.
I would add, free speech principles are not to only be defended for people and speech that we like...
Destruction of life exists in DEGREES, as does incitement to violence. Publishing someone's name in connection to some piece of behaviour might not be an explicit call for their destruction but it may amount to being a knowingly tacit instruction for knuckle-draggers to act. And a person's life can be made a misery by having their property continually vandalised in a defamatory manner.
The story of Irish Youtuber, Dave Cullen, comes to mind here. Please research it. Laws only go so far in protecting people.
As for your elevation of 21st century Melbourne above 17C Salem, it had me (as someone who lived in the city during the great plague) chuckling.:)
I stand by my statement that so-called modern humanity is just as primitive, morally and intellectually, as it was 2000 years ago.
Finally, I am rather more persuaded by reasoning than by references to past 'achievements and/or 'qualifications'. Your second last sentence was ... well, disappointing.:)
I am praying (to Allah) that you may be delivered a greater measure of wisdom and balance.
It's got nothing to do with qualifications. I'm saying I read the whole thing and formulated an argument for democratic speech in online spaces based upon it, and on that basis I disagree with you. I'm a little surprised that you read my comment so uncharitably, but these are not things I can control.
Is it known whether or not Australia ever receives funding from the U.S.? How about from U.N. agencies? It has recently been shown that many unlikely recipients of funds from USAID exist - such as $260 million to George Soros.
Yes, I wonder about back door funding too. Think about the forests of 5G masts in Australian capital cities and elsewhere. This must have been a massive exercise, considering the quantity of them, the choice of different kinds of weapons for different masts, and their geographical coverage to ensure effective and efficient killing when the time came. Perhaps a few FOIs might be in order. This is just the sort of thing that USAID might have funded.
Thank you Rebekah, another balanced report, informing us of the undermining process taking place in Govt. I wonder why some people in our country are so keen to dismantle our democracy. But I won't waste my time trying to get into why psychopathy exists. It does, and has, for a long time. It seems the greater the wealth and power the more the humanity dies in many folks. It has been thousands of years that the powerful have tried to enslave the rest of the people. Are we all awake to this yet??
Balanced?:)
Great work
Inmam Grant has much to answer for but refuses to give clear outline How is she holding this "job" doing nothing good being paid for it & creating chaos within
I actually think they do a lot of good. eSafety's initial mandate of protecting children from online abuse is honourable, I think. Also, I would think there are many Australians who have benefited from the image based abuse scheme, which largely deals with revenge porn content. The problems seem to mostly arise from the adult cyber abuse scheme, whereby eSafety makes subjective determinations on politically sensitive issues about what constitutes online harm (eg: 'misgendering) - this has had the most impact on free political communication in Australia, and is the issue for which eSafety is most often in the news for the wrong reasons. Additionally, I do think the Commissioner tends to overstep, such as trying to enforce a global ban on violent content, which was outside of eSafety's jurisdiction.
My impression, here in the U.S. at least, is that "for the children" is simply a cover for a huge foot-in-the-door for real censorship AND for forcing identification of everyone using the Internet by demanding personal info in order to verify their age. That is a terminal attack on privacy, and will most definitely be used against us.
I'm not saying children shouldn't be protected, but censoring social media that is actually harmful for children (who should be strongly monitored and limited by their parents to begin with) must be made the limit of censorship. Censorship of adult comments/posts should not be allowed. I would rather block or ignore trash from other adults than to have censorship be allowed.
Thank you! We need the right of free speech written into our constitution. Otherwise we do not have a healthy society or a healthy democracy. The unsafe, counterproductive ("Safe and Effective") experimental injection mandates are a prime example. Health professionals were and are gagged from doing anything but parrot the .gov narrative. Health professionals who attempted to speak out were deprived of their licences and livelihoods by "public servants". Many Australians were harmed who could otherwise have been alerted to the risks.
Many died who otherwise might have lived.
I suspect that the shuttering of USAID may see DS funding for people like Inman Grant, chemtrails, 5G towers, bird flu propaganda etc etc etc, now dry up. Let's hope so. There are already reports (in the US, I think) of clear blue skies for the first time in ages since the demise of USAID, which has nothing to do with foreign aid, but whose remit is to create assets - leaders, governments, terrorist organisations etc - by violent means if necessary (e.g. the Maidan coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014), which align with the interests.
Is there any evidence of USAID funding weather programs on US soil? Or anywhere? If so, that would be very interesting to read about.
Here's something:
https://selfreliancecentral.com/2025/02/08/chemtrails-something-weirds-happening/
So far I have not seen any proof of a connection, but the lack of con (chem) trails immediately following the shut-down of USAID - in many areas from what I have read - would seem to stretch the envelope of "coincidence". Even here in SW Montana (the "boondocks" of this part of our state) seems significant, as we get many daily overflights, some of which are probably military training flights (jets mid-air refueling on the same flight path every time) but others that appear to be cargo aircraft rather than passenger aircraft.
Thanks, Rebekah. This is another example of why Inman Grant is, in my opinion, the most dangerous woman to free speech in Australia... if I'm still allowed to give my opinion...
The nastiest Totalitarian is the one with lipstick. We are held hostage by nasty, NPD over educated, over protected small "L" liberals, the Know-alls-from -hell, whom actually know nothing. Zeal & a furious vagina, vengeance & the smell of hospital soap. Does one need a People Smuggler to bust out of Foryourowngoodistan?
Just a reminder that I do ask that comments be kept civil please 🙏🏼
People should feel LUCKY that I can't get these damned voodoo dolls to work on the barbie...
I have a feeling both Celine and Julie (the 'strong' female combatants in this case) would fail to positively impress me, either morally or intellectually.
Interesting how we appeal to judicial verdicts (as if they were handed down by a sage) if they go our way and put the boots in when they do not.:) These verdicts seem (somewhat alarmingly) to be a function of the politics of the judge(s) involved.
Okay, so let us get to the basics of this issue. A person was named in social media. It was therefore made PERSONAL and, in so doing, an important line was crossed.
Imagine if the internet and social media were available back in the 17th century and someone living in Salem had posted that X is a witch and they live at Y. :) I am sure religious nutjob vigil antes (perhaps carrying copies of the Old Testament under their arms) would have seen to it that X ceased to exist.
Given that human psychology has scarcely changed in 2000 years it is not hard to imagine the sort of grief a post such as that of Ms Baumgarten might cause their target.
I am in more sympathy with Jules baby than with Celine wrt to this particular case. I think John Stuart Mill (the supposed grandfather of libertarianism) would have been with me, too.
1. Celine did not post anyone's residential address. The information was of a professional nature and was all publicly listed.
2. Melbourne not being 17thC Salem, the individual in question was not at risk of being burned alive for alleged witchcraft.
3. Murdering someone for any reason (religious or otherwise) is a crime in Australia, thankfully, as is incitement to violence. Evidently, none of these crimes were committed.
4. Additional to incitement to violence, which is illegal, eSafety has statutory provisions for removing content that it determines meets the criteria for Adult Cyber Abuse. Per eSafety's testimony, Celine's post did not meet these criteria.
Having written a thesis based in part on JSM's On Liberty, I cannot disagree with you more.
I would add, free speech principles are not to only be defended for people and speech that we like...
Destruction of life exists in DEGREES, as does incitement to violence. Publishing someone's name in connection to some piece of behaviour might not be an explicit call for their destruction but it may amount to being a knowingly tacit instruction for knuckle-draggers to act. And a person's life can be made a misery by having their property continually vandalised in a defamatory manner.
The story of Irish Youtuber, Dave Cullen, comes to mind here. Please research it. Laws only go so far in protecting people.
As for your elevation of 21st century Melbourne above 17C Salem, it had me (as someone who lived in the city during the great plague) chuckling.:)
I stand by my statement that so-called modern humanity is just as primitive, morally and intellectually, as it was 2000 years ago.
Finally, I am rather more persuaded by reasoning than by references to past 'achievements and/or 'qualifications'. Your second last sentence was ... well, disappointing.:)
I am praying (to Allah) that you may be delivered a greater measure of wisdom and balance.
Evad
It's got nothing to do with qualifications. I'm saying I read the whole thing and formulated an argument for democratic speech in online spaces based upon it, and on that basis I disagree with you. I'm a little surprised that you read my comment so uncharitably, but these are not things I can control.
Is Inman Grant funded by USAID I wonder....
The annual reports show funding as coming from the Australian Government.
Is it known whether or not Australia ever receives funding from the U.S.? How about from U.N. agencies? It has recently been shown that many unlikely recipients of funds from USAID exist - such as $260 million to George Soros.
Yes, I wonder about back door funding too. Think about the forests of 5G masts in Australian capital cities and elsewhere. This must have been a massive exercise, considering the quantity of them, the choice of different kinds of weapons for different masts, and their geographical coverage to ensure effective and efficient killing when the time came. Perhaps a few FOIs might be in order. This is just the sort of thing that USAID might have funded.