eSafety Commissioner wasted $66,000 of taxpayer money on court defeat to Elon Musk's X and 'Billboard Chris'

Sky News AU

3 days ago

About $66,000 of Australians' taxpayer money was wasted on the eSafety Commissioner's court defeat to X Corp and Canadian activist Chris Elston, SkyNews.com.au can reveal.
Elon Musk's X and Mr Elston, also known as 'Billboard Chris' scored a major win over eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant and transgender activist Teddy Cook in a landmark ruling from the Administrative Review Tribunal on Tuesday.
The ruling rescinded a takedown order issued by the eSafety Commissioner over a social media post on X from February 2024 where Mr Elston, blasted the proposed appointment of Mr Cook, a biological female, to a World Health Organisation panel.
In the post, he wrote: 'This woman (yes, she's 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.'
Ms Grant labelled the remarks 'degrading' and issued a takedown notice to X on March 22, 2024 threatening the company with a fine of up to $782,500 for any refusal to remove the post.
While X complied and blocked the post, the company and Mr Elston filed a legal challenge which culminated in Tuesday's victory.
An eSafety spokesperson acknowledged the ruling and said its legal costs to date from responding to X Corp/Mr Elston's application review were "approximately $66,000".
'eSafety notes the Administrative Review Tribunal's decision to set aside eSafety's decision to give a removal notice to X Corp relating to a post on X by Mr Elston," the spokesperson told SkyNews.com.au.
'This is the first case before the Tribunal seeking review of a decision where eSafety assessed the material met the criteria for adult cyber abuse.
'eSafety welcomes the guidance provided by the Tribunal on the statutory test for adult cyber abuse. We will continue to take seriously the responsibility of remediating online harms and protecting Australians from serious online harms."
Speaking to Sky News Australia on Wednesday, Mr Elston described the hearing as a 'total destruction' of Ms Inman Grant's case against him, and claimed all of the eSafety Commissioner's 'so-called experts' were 'basically dismissed'.
Mr Elston said the Administrative Review Tribunal deputy president Damien O'Donovan had judged Billboard Chris acted in accordance to his convictions.
Under the Online Safety Act, eSafety has the power to order the removal of a post if the material is found to meet the criteria of targeting a particular Australian adult that is both intended to cause serious harm and is also menacing, harassing or offensive in all circumstances.
But Mr O'Donovan said there was no evidence Mr Elston intended for Mr Cook to read or receive the post he shared on X.
'In the absence of any evidence that Mr Elston intended that Mr Cook would receive and read the post, and in light of the broader explanation as to why Mr Elston made the post, I am satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook,' his ruling read.