Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Canadian Chris Elston, known as Billboard Chris, has won “the most important freedom of speech case on the planet right now” against Australia’s eSafety Commissioner. The landmark decision overturned a censorship order against a post he made in 2024.

Chris Elston, a Canadian father committed to ending the surgical and chemical castration of children, celebrated a legal victory yesterday at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal, releasing its decision at 4 pm yesterday in Melbourne, nullified an order by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to remove an X post made by Billboard Chris on 28 February 2024.

Backed by the Human Rights Law Alliance and Alliance Defending Freedom International, Elston was jubilant, calling the decision “truly devastating” for the eSafety Office.

“All of their experts were dismissed as unconvincing and contradictory.”

He continued,

“In her worst dreams, the eSafety Commissioner could not have expected such a total defeat.”

“More importantly, this ruling provides a safe roadmap for free speech in Australia, when that speech intends to genuinely debate matters.”

eSafety Commissioner Orders Removal of Billboard Chris’ Post

The post at the centre of the controversy criticised the World Health Organisation and its appointed panel tasked with drafting ‘transgender health guidelines’.

Billboard Chris had commented on a post linking to a Daily Mail article, the full title of which reads, “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?”

While former ACON manager and Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook occupies a significant portion of the article, the Daily Mail author is particularly critical of the WHO. The report is scathing, noting that only just over a third of the WHO’s appointments to a ‘health’ panel were medical doctors. The rest were “human rights lawyers, activists, and policy advisors.”

Billboard Chris responded to the article, writing:

“This woman (yes, she’s a 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.”

The Commissioner deemed it “cyber abuse” and ordered X to remove the post, threatening the social media giant with a $782,500 fine for non-compliance. X refused, but later geoblocked it in Australia. Along with Elston, it fought the censorship. And won.

What a ‘Reasonable Person’ Would Decide

The case centred on two criteria that, under current Australian Law, must be met for content to be removed. These are:

1. “An ordinary reasonable person would conclude that it is likely that the material was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm.”
2. “An ordinary reasonable person in the position of the Australian adult would regard the material as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.”

Leaving to the side, for the moment, Seth Dillon’s response that “‘An ordinary, reasonable person’ would deny that a woman can become a man by self-identification or surgery”, the Tribunal was not satisfied that either criterion was met.

First, the Tribunal was unconvinced that Elston intended to cause “serious harm”. Key to this defence was that Billboard Chris uses language consistently.

The Tribunal recognised that Elston ‘misgendered’ “Cook because it is his universal practice to refer to people who identify as trans by pronouns and descriptors that correspond to their biological sex at birth.”

“He does this to reflect his belief that doing otherwise involves an untrue statement, and because doing otherwise has implications for the rights and safety of women and children.”

In an interview following the decision, Billboard Chris revealed further why he refuses to play “the pronoun game”.

“I’m not going to lie. I’m not going to call someone by the sex that they’re not, because I believe that has other ramifications down the line.

“As soon as you play this pronoun game with anybody, and you call a man a woman, or you call a woman a he/him… you are playing into this lie. You are affirming a delusion. You are giving legitimacy to an ideology that is maiming and sterilising children and turning them into lifelong pharmaceutical patients.”

If Billboard Chris changed his approach by sometimes using ‘preferred pronouns’ and other times not, it would have provided a much stronger basis that he did deliberately intend to target and “seriously harm” an individual. Elston’s consistency was key.

In addition, Elston did not tag Cook in the post, but instead directed his post at the WHO and its selection criteria. He played the ball, not the man.

Second, the Tribunal found that the post was phrased “offensively”, but “had no malicious intent”. The fact that Elston travels across countries to wear a large billboard saying “Children are never born in the wrong body” was considered sufficient evidence to reveal his true intentions.

Tax-Payer Money Flushed Down the Drain

Perhaps the most embarrassing part of the ruling was the simple dismissal of two expert witnesses brought in to defend the eSafety Commissioner. The Tribunal found it impossible to “draw any assistance” from much of Professor Graham’s report, finding its conclusions “unconvincing”.

A second expert witness, Professor Cover fared even worse, found to have “no medical qualifications and had never obtained a qualification in psychology.”

The Tribunal concluded,

“It was unclear in what sense his opinions were expert opinions.”

Also unclear is in what sense the eSafety Commissioner, who “relied on a report by Professor Cover”, believed this to have helped her cause.

Both experts (along with others not called to testify) cost the taxpayer $10,000 each – or more. A clear abuse and waste of Australians’ hard-earned.

Where to Now for the eSafety Commissioner?

When a Tribunal outrightly rejected the understanding of the person paid by taxpayers to form the very online laws under review, concluding “the approach advanced by the Commissioner that draws heavily from the law of defamation… is not correct” – that does not inspire confidence.

Worse still was the Commissioner’s attempt to argue that Elston’s intent behind his post didn’t matter. Only what someone else (such as the Commissioner) thinks Billboard Chris’ intent counts.

The eSafety Commissioner has used that same subjective basis to censor:

• A post by breastfeeding expert Jasmine Sussex that “men cannot breastfeed”. Sussex was subsequently taken to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for her stance.
• Video content of the attempted murder of Sydney Bishop Mar Mari. For every day X allowed the incident to remain accessible, Musk footed a $700,000 bill.

All this comes at a time when Julie Inman Grant is currently campaigning to increase her powers.

‘Fighting for Freedom of Speech’: Billboard Chris

Billboard Chris’ case against the eSafety Commissioner was an incredibly important one. He described it as “the most important freedom of speech case on the planet right now.”

But it was not so much about freedom of speech as it was about the freedom to speak the truth.

Wow!
Thank you @BillboardChris & @elonmusk https://t.co/EXh6STTaFe

— Moira Deeming MP (@MoiraDeemingMP) July 1, 2025

“With a shoestring budget, we went up against the inexhaustible resources of the government and won”, he says.

“Why? Because we have truth on our side, and all they have is authoritarianism and lies.”

The original purpose – well-intentioned or not – of the eSafety Commission was to protect children online from bullying and sexual predators.

Whatever moral crusade Julie Inman Grant believes she is fighting for now, it is no longer the protection of children.

It is the exact opposite.

There can never be too many victories for the truth.

___

Images via X/YouTube/Sky News Australia.