A Petition to Get Rid of the eSafety Censor

A couple weeks ago, the Free Speech Union of Australia launched a petition to repeal the Online Safety Act. This came on the back of FSUA’s pretty silly but very funny troll-win over eSafety Czar, Inman Grant, in the Australian Review Tribunal. We’ll get to the petition, but first the troll-win.

Inman Grant has a habit of losing in court because, in her holier than thou manner, she has a habit of censoring first and asking questions never. This latest case, however, is pretty nutty. Last year, Inman Grant was feted at a Council for Foreign Relations lovefest. Inman Grant delivered her usual sermon and fielded the usual softball questions. Inman Grant’s sermon, however, included a drive-by slap of FSUA:

So i think there are other tools we’re starting to see, tying regulators up in red tape and lawsuits—we have seven lawsuits. There are front groups; one is called the Free Speech Union of Australia, and they’ve run a campaign to increase the number of FOIs by 3000 percent. They’re very open about, let’s just tie them up in knots.

The video of the event was posted online (and here), which is presumably when FSUA became aware of it, and they took offence. Specifically, Reuben Kirkham, a director of FSUA and seemingly the FSUA guy in charge of annoying Inman Grant, lodged a complaint with eSafety, claiming that the video constituted cyber-abuse and requesting a removal notice be issued for the video. This was a very funny if strategically questionable move.

Whatever the truth behind or propriety of Inman Grant’s remark, and we’ll get to that below, it would seem a hell of a stretch to claim that the video of her remark amounted to cyber-abuse. Still, FSUA won. So, what did they win?

eSafety reviewed Kirkham’s complaint and determined that the video did not meet the criteria for a removal notice, because the video did not target a specific Australian (p 12). Kirkham then requested a statement of reasons for this decision (p 13). eSafety responded that they were not required to do so, because they had not made a “reviewable decision” (p 13). It was this decision to not provide a statement of reasons that Kirkam appealed to the Administrative Review Tribunal, and Deputy President Britten-Jones ruled in Kirkham’s favour.

Britten-Jones’s ruling is a little technical, but, in brief, Australian case law has established a liberal interpretation of “decision” for the purposes of review, generally permitting broad license for anyone affected by a decision the right to know the reasons for that decision (pp 32-36, 67-70). DP Britten-Jones had some sympathy with eSafety’s two-stage approach to decision-making, which was the basis of eSafety’s argument (pp 53-54), and she was gently critical of the pertinent section of the Online Safety Act (pp 73-74). But DP Britten-Jones stuck with the principle that a decision is a “decision”, and so determined that eSafety’s decision was reviewable.

So, what now? FSUA will get their reasons, which will presumably be a carefully worded version of “Don’t be ridiculous”, and the thing will be done. Whatever.

If the posting of the video is a far cry from cyber-abuse, that does not mean, however, that Inman Grant’s remarks should be allowed to pass without comment. The remarks were absurd and nasty, and it was absolutely appalling for someone in Inman Grant’s position to make them.

We have no idea whether FSUA is engaged in a red tape FOI campaign against eSafety, and we have no idea of the origin or veracity of Inman Grant’s 3000% claim. Quite possibly FSUA is engaged in some such campaign, although, if so, Inman Grant did not explain why eSafety has not simply argued that FSUA was being vexatious, as they are entitled to do. But, in any case, it is pretty damn rich for Inman Grant, so strongly backed by legal power as she is, to whine about opponents using what little legal means they have to oppose her.

The really nasty phrase, however, is “front groups”. That line fits perfectly with Inman Grant’s view of the world as Good Guys and Bad Guys, and it is an atrocious line. One can argue for eSafety and its powers, of course, and fair enough that Inman Grant would. But the suggestion that those opposed to Inman Grant and her censors are in some way puppets, that they are not simply taking a principled stand for free speech, is disgraceful.

The guilt by association argument, with or without any proven or actual association, is a standard tactic now, both on the “Left” and the “Right”, and it is always sleazy and wrong. It is, always, a tactic employed to avoid addressing the merits of an argument. In this sense, Inman Grant is no worse that the likes of a Rufo. But she is also no better. Which, for an eSafety Commissioner, is failing to clear a mighty low bar.

It is well worth watching Inman Grant’s entire CFR performance. Over an hour, Inman Grant fails to devote a single sentence to the free speech implications of her and others’ safety crusading; she seemingly has not an ounce of doubt about her Rightness and Goodness. All of this was delivered with the stage dressing of a coven of nodding approvalers. It is nauseating.

And, finally, to FSUA’s petition. to repeal the Online Safety Act. We know essentially nothing of FSUA, and they seem somewhat clunky right now. They are the Australian wing of Free Speech Union, however, a British organisation now spreading. FSU has been active and important.

It is difficult to see that FSUA’s petition will do much good. But any time someone is calling to rid Inman Grant of her powers, it cannot be a bad thing. Good luck to them.