Chris Elston—known online as ‘Billboard Chris,’ a Canadian activist often seen wearing a sandwich board reading “children cannot consent to puberty blockers”—has been censored by the Australian eSafety commissioner.
But the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal advocacy group is fighting alongside him, insisting that “in a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not criminal penalties.”
Chris shared a Daily Mail article on the “kinky secrets of [an Australian, transgender] U.N. trans expert” (Teddy Cook) on Twitter/X in February alongside what an unnamed delegate of the eSafety Commissioner described as Chris’ own “offensive” comments. When Cook complained about the post to the commissioner, the independent regulator for online safety requested that X remove the content.
ADF reports that while Elon Musk’s social media platform “initially refused,” it later ‘geo-blocked’ the content in Australia in the face of a formal removal order from the commission. Musk was also threatened with an $800,000 (€500,000) fine if he failed to remove the content.
X has filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Melbourne.
Robert Clarke, who is director of advocacy for ADF International and is serving as part of Elston’s legal team, said that, as the case progresses, “it is vital we challenge the global spread of censorship.”
We’re used to hearing about governments punishing citizens for their ‘wrong’ speech in parts of the world where strict blasphemy laws are still enforced—but now, from Australia, to Mexico, to Finland, we see Western governments increasingly take authoritarian steps to shut down views they don’t like, often by branding them as “offensive,” “hateful,” or “misinformation.”
In a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not criminal penalties. We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris—and others around the world punished for expressing their peaceful views—in defending the right to live and speak the truth.
The group is hoping to raise €5,950 to support its legal case against the censoring of Elston.
