Billboard Chris, a conservative activist and renowned children’s safety campaigner, is celebrating a significant legal victory after part of the Australian government reversed its stance on censoring his post that criticized a transgender individual affiliated with the World Health Organization (WHO). The activist, whose real name is Chris Elston, filed a lawsuit alongside social media platform X, challenging the government’s demands to delete his 2024 post that criticized a WHO official for what he described as their pro-child gender operation views. The Australian Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) ruled in favor of Elston, stating that his post did not constitute cyber abuse and that his right to free speech was upheld. Elston, who has been a vocal critic of gender transition measures for minors, described the ruling as a ‘decisive victory’ and expressed hope that the decision would allow Australians to ‘rejoice’ in their freedom to express that ‘a man is a man, and a woman is a woman.’
Elston’s case gained significant attention after he shared an article from the Daily Mail, which detailed the controversial past of Teddy Cook, a transgender male recently appointed to a WHO body tasked with drafting guidelines for trans and non-binary individuals. The article, which Elston posted on X, referred to Cook as a ‘she,’ aligning with Cook’s biological sex, and included details about Cook’s past, including his alleged involvement in activities such as bestiality and bondage. The post led to a backlash from the Australian eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, who issued a demand to X to remove the post, citing it as ‘cyber abuse’ of Cook and threatening a nearly $800,000 fine if the platform did not comply. The government official’s actions prompted a legal challenge from Elston and X, with the assistance of the Alliance Defending Freedom International and Australia’s Human Rights Law Alliance. The legal battle, which concluded with a ruling from the ART, marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over online censorship and free speech protections in Australia.
The ruling was met with praise from X’s official Global Government Affairs account, which called the decision ‘a decisive win for free speech in Australia and around the world.’ Elston’s legal team, represented by Lois McLatchie Miller of ADF International, emphasized that the case set an important precedent by affirming that free speech should not be silenced under the guise of protecting individuals from cyber abuse. The trial highlighted the tension between state oversight of online content and the rights of individuals to express their views, with the tribunal’s decision ultimately siding with Elston’s right to free expression. The outcome has been celebrated not only as a win for free speech but also as a significant moment in the global debate over online censorship, drawing attention to the broader implications for digital rights and government regulation.
In light of the ruling, Elston expressed his belief that the case had been won on ‘every single legal point,’ and that the decision would have a lasting impact on the perception of free speech in Australia. His comments reflect a broader sentiment among conservative activists and free speech advocates who argue that the ruling reinforces the importance of protecting individuals’ rights to express their beliefs without fear of government overreach. The case has also sparked discussions about the balance between online safety and the right to free expression, with critics of the ruling urging for a more nuanced approach to addressing cyber abuses while safeguarding fundamental freedoms. As the debate continues, the case serves as a critical example of how legal battles over free speech can shape the future of digital rights and government regulation in the digital age.