Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Julie Inman Grant’s sweeping eSafety powers are under fire from US lawmakers, who’ve summoned her to Washington DC to explain why she’s censoring the speech of Americans.

Julie Inman Grant’s sins are finally catching up with her.

Australia’s Censorship Commissar, as she’s been dubbed by Elon Musk, has been summoned to appear before US Congress for a please explain following her years-long crusade against truth in the name of ‘eSafety’.

Last May, Inman Grant demanded X and Meta censor footage of the stabbing attack on Sydney Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel for meeting the high threshold of “extreme crime and violence material”.

In fact, the video was grainy and the footage hardly graphic, with no blood, gore or knife in view. What the video did expose, though, is how Australia’s reckless immigration system is fuelling both Islamism and Christaphobia — a trend we’re apparently not supposed to notice.

Something else we weren’t supposed to notice was when an Australian activist who promotes bondage, bestiality and nudism was hired to help draft transgender ‘care guidelines’ for the United Nations.

When children’s advocate ‘Billboard’ Chris Elston pointed this out on X, Inman Grant’s office once again came to our rescue by ordering the post’s removal.

The eSafety Office has also waged war on social media posts stating that men can’t breastfeed, secretly compiled 2,600 documents on Australia’s largest Christian news site, and will infamously ban under 16s from social media next month, even as hardcore pornography sites like PornHub and YouPorn remain accessible to minors.

Congressman Jim Jordan, who penned the letter requesting Julie Inman Grant’s appearance on Capitol Hill, told Sky News Australia last week that what begins as a desire to limit harmful content “never stops there — it goes to censorship of political speech”.

Indeed, one can hardly imagine a better example of this Orwellian trajectory than our nation’s eSafety regime.

Inman Grant a ‘Noted Zealot’ for Censorship

Jordan was more than justified in telling Inman Grant he regards her as a “noted zealot for global takedowns”, in his letter also calling her out for “collud[ing] with pro-censorship entities in the United States to facilitate Australia’s, and other, global censorship regimes”.

“As the Australian eSafety Commissioner, you are the official primarily responsible for enforcing Australia’s Online Safety Act (OSA), which imposes obligations on American companies and threatens speech of American citizens,” he wrote.

He was scathing towards her “expansive interpretation and enforcement of Australia’s OSA” and her “claim of extraterritorial jurisdiction to censor speech outside of Australia” which “directly threatens American speech”.

Jordan was making reference to the Bishop Mar Mari affair, in which the eSafety office insisted that geoblocking the footage — that is, making it unavailable only in Australia — was insufficient, and that X and Meta must delete the content globally.

Incredibly, Inman Grant has sought to rewrite history on this count, claiming in a recent interview, “I never have and never will ask for global regulation of the internet.”

Not only did her office do just that with the Mar Mari footage — in a bid that ultimately failed, mind you — but Inman Grant herself has gone on record promoting a global “recalibration” of human rights like freedom of speech.

Inman Grant’s Controversial Ties to Stanford

Jordan went on to criticise Inman Grant for “working with US-based organisations and universities to facilitate and encourage cooperation with foreign censorship regimes”.

In particular, he noted that Inman Grant recently delivered a keynote address at a closed-door conference attended by top censorship officials from the European Union, the UK, Australia and Brazil, and hosted by Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center and Social Media Lab.

Those initiatives are effectively a rebrand of the scandal-ridden Stanford Internet Observatory, which colluded with Big Tech and the Biden administration to suppress information it knew was factually true about vaccinated people contracting Covid-19 and voter fraud taking place during the 2020 US election, among other topics.

“The Stanford Internet Observatory played a key role in laundering government censorship requests to social media platforms, enabling officials in the US government to covertly silence American voices to influence the 2020 US presidential election,” Jordan explained in his letter to Inman Grant.

The Stanford event at which she spoke, Jordan warned, “sought to facilitate cooperation with global censorship by bringing together foreign officials who have directly targeted American speech and represent a serious threat to the First Amendment”.

The Trip Inman Grant Must Take

Jim Jordan has since revealed to Australian media outlets that Inman Grant is yet to reply to the summons.

For her part, Inman Grant has more or less laughed off the invitation as voluntary.

But as Jordan has pointed out, Inman Grant certainly “knows how to get to the United States”.

Not only did she present a keynote address at the Stanford event, and not only is she a dual US-Australian citizen, but as the Daily Telegraph recently revealed, over a three-year period, Julie Inman Grant has charged Australian taxpayers more than $425,000 to travel the world, with staff in tow, to evangelise for censorship.

If there’s one trip the average Australian would want her to embark on, it would be to Washington, DC, to explain to Jim Jordan why she’s so intent on silencing us.

“When you look at history, it is never the good guys who are for censorship,” Jordan said in a recent interview about the saga. “It is always the bad guys.”

True enough. Speaking of good guys and bad guys, as I predicted at Trump’s re-election, the Trump administration will likely do a far better job at defending the free speech of Australians than our own leaders will.

Here’s hoping Inman Grant decides to cooperate — and that if she doesn’t, Congress uses its authority to compel her testimony. She is a US citizen after all, and, whether acting on Australia’s behalf or otherwise, she is suppressing the speech of Americans.

What an ironic state of affairs it would be if America’s First Amendment ended up protecting the free speech of Australians — and if eKaren’s runaway zealotry proved to be her downfall.

___

Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.