A threatening notice issued by the online safety regulator has brought renewed attention to Australia’s heavy-handed approach to censorship and its extreme gender affirming care laws
Two queries from readers that I wish I'd addressed more clearly in the article, and so will pin here instead:
1. Q: Was the censored speech illegal or not?
A: My understanding is that the speech is not illegal per se, but under the Online Safety Act, eSafety can determine it illegal within the context of being displayed on a digital platform. The OSA gives eSafety leeway to decide that certain speech on social media platforms, if the subject of a Complaint, is 'harmful' if an 'ordinary reasonable person' would deem it to be so. This is obviously highly subjective. However, the OSA gives eSafety the power to make subjective calls on this basis and to then declare it illegal for these certain posts which have been deemed 'harmful' to remain visible to Australian users.
2. Q: Is eSafety well-intentioned or are they going after certain users maliciously?
A: My impression, from the communications that I've had with had with various staff at eSafety is that they are well-intentioned and that these instances of culture war censorship occur in the grey area in their broader work of addressing online harm, such as removing child abuse or revenge porn content. My opinion is that eSafety staff are probably unaware of the problems arising from the degree of subjectivity allowed within the application of the OSA, particularly pertaining to charged political and social issues such as trans identity and medicine. I think that eSafety predominantly does great work and protects a lot of vulnerable people from online abuse. I have noted this in previous articles about eSafety and will endeavour to keep mentioning it going forward. That said, I think that eSafety head Julie Inman Grant is a different case. She appears to have a strong dislike of Elon Musk and his approach to speech. The combination of her public comments and eSafety's actions against X lead me to think (just my opinion, I can't prove it) that she probably has somewhat of a vendetta against Musk and the platform, which is influencing her professional conduct.
Thank you for this post Rebekah. These woke, leftist bureaurcrats & politicians who give them power, are way out of step with mainstream, normal people. It is a joke, but not a funny one!
Thank you for this article, Rebekah. I have to admit, this is not an area in which I have any experience, nor is it one I have been inclined to comment on given its delicate nature. I sincerely empathise with people who feel their biology does not align with their authentic selves, and I support most cases of adults seeking acceptance in living with such authenticity; however, the practicalities that some people and organisations advocating in this space demand are increasingly extreme, and in some cases disturbing, particularly as they pertain to children. As with other aspects of so-called 'woke' ideology, in many cases the scales seem to have tipped from a desire for acceptance to an insatiable rage, fuelled by narcissism. While I do not condone abusive rhetoric, we simply must be able to have respectful discussions about these topics, free from government interference.
In hocus pocus world "Angel Number 313 symbolizes divine support, creativity, and the power of positive manifestation, urging individuals to embrace new beginnings and trust in their unique path. ( The do what you're told path... that creates equity for ponies... Sorry, had to butt in)
It emphasizes the importance of clear communication and self-expression in nurturing relationships and encourages spiritual and emotional growth through optimism and inner wisdom."
That's just fine with me if you take out the words just and fine.
Thanks Rebekah. It would be good to understand how this issue became so prevalent and entrenched so quickly. I know there are activists pushing for this but how did they gain so much political support and momentum?
Two queries from readers that I wish I'd addressed more clearly in the article, and so will pin here instead:
1. Q: Was the censored speech illegal or not?
A: My understanding is that the speech is not illegal per se, but under the Online Safety Act, eSafety can determine it illegal within the context of being displayed on a digital platform. The OSA gives eSafety leeway to decide that certain speech on social media platforms, if the subject of a Complaint, is 'harmful' if an 'ordinary reasonable person' would deem it to be so. This is obviously highly subjective. However, the OSA gives eSafety the power to make subjective calls on this basis and to then declare it illegal for these certain posts which have been deemed 'harmful' to remain visible to Australian users.
2. Q: Is eSafety well-intentioned or are they going after certain users maliciously?
A: My impression, from the communications that I've had with had with various staff at eSafety is that they are well-intentioned and that these instances of culture war censorship occur in the grey area in their broader work of addressing online harm, such as removing child abuse or revenge porn content. My opinion is that eSafety staff are probably unaware of the problems arising from the degree of subjectivity allowed within the application of the OSA, particularly pertaining to charged political and social issues such as trans identity and medicine. I think that eSafety predominantly does great work and protects a lot of vulnerable people from online abuse. I have noted this in previous articles about eSafety and will endeavour to keep mentioning it going forward. That said, I think that eSafety head Julie Inman Grant is a different case. She appears to have a strong dislike of Elon Musk and his approach to speech. The combination of her public comments and eSafety's actions against X lead me to think (just my opinion, I can't prove it) that she probably has somewhat of a vendetta against Musk and the platform, which is influencing her professional conduct.
Thank you for this post Rebekah. These woke, leftist bureaurcrats & politicians who give them power, are way out of step with mainstream, normal people. It is a joke, but not a funny one!
🙏 thanks for the update, our government is out of control - they really do hate us
Thank you for this article, Rebekah. I have to admit, this is not an area in which I have any experience, nor is it one I have been inclined to comment on given its delicate nature. I sincerely empathise with people who feel their biology does not align with their authentic selves, and I support most cases of adults seeking acceptance in living with such authenticity; however, the practicalities that some people and organisations advocating in this space demand are increasingly extreme, and in some cases disturbing, particularly as they pertain to children. As with other aspects of so-called 'woke' ideology, in many cases the scales seem to have tipped from a desire for acceptance to an insatiable rage, fuelled by narcissism. While I do not condone abusive rhetoric, we simply must be able to have respectful discussions about these topics, free from government interference.
"1 penalty unit is $313 for individuals."
An interesting choice of number for a fine.-
In hocus pocus world "Angel Number 313 symbolizes divine support, creativity, and the power of positive manifestation, urging individuals to embrace new beginnings and trust in their unique path. ( The do what you're told path... that creates equity for ponies... Sorry, had to butt in)
It emphasizes the importance of clear communication and self-expression in nurturing relationships and encourages spiritual and emotional growth through optimism and inner wisdom."
That's just fine with me if you take out the words just and fine.
Thanks Rebekah. It would be good to understand how this issue became so prevalent and entrenched so quickly. I know there are activists pushing for this but how did they gain so much political support and momentum?