In a troubling development for free expression, Australia's eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has been named in a US congressional report for allegedly colluding with foreign governments and corporate cartels, such as the World Economic Forum-linked Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), to censor American speech. This revelation, if substantiated, marks a diplomatic scandal and a direct challenge to the principles of free speech and national sovereignty. Australia's eSafety regime, designed to regulate online content, appears to be overstepping its bounds, seeking to control speech far beyond its borders. With little apparent pushback from Australia's political establishment, the United States must respond strategically to protect its citizens' rights and set a precedent against global censorship. This post explores the issue and proposes a multi-pronged US response to counter this alarming trend.
The accusations against Julie Inman Grant are serious. According to reports, she has coordinated with GARM, a coalition backed by corporate giants like Disney and Mastercard, to pressure platforms like X into silencing voices deemed "harmful." This includes traditional views on gender, race, or faith, often under the guise of "brand safety." Grant's actions reportedly extend beyond Australia, with demands for global content takedowns, even in the United States. One striking example involves her order to block content related to the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, not just in Australia, but worldwide. This move, opposed even by the victim, was later struck down by an Australian court, highlighting its overreach. Yet the precedent it sets is chilling: an unelected bureaucrat in Canberra attempting to dictate what Americans can see online.
This is not an isolated incident. The congressional report suggests Grant worked with GARM to influence her regulatory decisions, aligning with ideological networks to control narratives. Such actions undermine democratic principles, raising concerns about Australia's eSafety regime evolving into a tool for global censorship. The lack of domestic pushback in Australia, where both Labor and Liberal parties appear hesitant to challenge Grant, amplifies the need for international action.
The broader context is equally concerning. GARM, described as a WEF-linked initiative, aims to demonetise content it labels as objectionable, effectively starving dissenting voices of resources. This corporate-bureaucratic alliance threatens free expression by creating a system where unelected officials and private entities collaborate to suppress speech. The comparison to a Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-style society, underscores the danger of unchecked power. Australia is fast becoming an authoritarian system one with token voting, being what Sir Mark Oliphant once called elected dictatorships.
For the United States, this is a direct challenge to sovereignty. No democratic nation should tolerate foreign regulators dictating its citizens' speech. The US-Australia alliance, a cornerstone of Pacific security, makes this issue particularly sensitive. Ignoring it risks emboldening similar efforts elsewhere, while overreacting could strain diplomatic ties. A balanced, principled response is essential.
To counter Australia's eSafety overreach and protect free speech, the United States should adopt a multi-faceted approach that combines diplomacy, legislation, and public advocacy. Below are five key strategies:
1. Diplomatic Engagement
The US State Department should formally address these concerns with Australia's government through private diplomatic channels. By citing the congressional report (assuming its claims are verified), the US can request clarification on the eSafety regime's scope and Grant's actions. This approach avoids public escalation while signalling that attempts to regulate American speech are unacceptable. If necessary, the US could push for Grant's accountability or reforms to limit the eSafety Commissioner's extraterritorial powers, reinforcing respect for national sovereignty.
2. Strengthening Legal Protections
Congress should fortify domestic laws to shield US-based platforms from foreign censorship demands. Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to prohibit compliance with foreign takedown orders would empower platforms like X to resist pressure. Such legislation would send a clear message to allies like Australia that the US prioritises free speech, without directly interfering in their domestic policies.
3. Public Exposure and Advocacy
US lawmakers and civil society should amplify scrutiny of global censorship networks like GARM. Congressional hearings or investigations into corporate collusion with foreign regulators could expose these efforts and pressure advertisers to withdraw from such initiatives. Free speech advocacy groups should also engage Australian counterparts to build trans-Pacific momentum against bureaucratic overreach, addressing the apparent lack of domestic pushback in Australia. Public awareness can shift the narrative and encourage accountability.
4. Supporting Platform Resistance
The US should encourage platforms like X to legally and publicly resist foreign censorship demands. X's successful challenge against Grant's global takedown order in the Bishop Emmanuel case demonstrates the effectiveness of such resistance. The US could offer legal support or incentives for platforms to contest overreach, reinforcing their role as defenders of free expression. This aligns with the broader goal of ensuring that private companies choose user rights over foreign regulatory pressure.
5. Targeted Sanctions as a Last Resort
If evidence confirms deliberate interference in US speech, the US could consider targeted sanctions, such as visa bans or asset freezes, against individuals like Grant under frameworks like the Global Magnitsky Act. However, this should be a last resort, as it risks straining the US-Australia alliance. Diplomacy and legal measures should take precedence to maintain cooperative relations while addressing the issue.
The implications of Australia's eSafety overreach extend beyond bilateral relations. If unelected bureaucrats can influence global speech, the precedent could embolden other nations to follow suit, creating a patchwork of censorship regimes that undermine the internet's open nature. The US, as a global leader in free expression, has a responsibility to push back. Failure to act could normalise bureaucratic overreach, eroding democratic norms worldwide.
Australia's political inaction, evidenced by the silence of figures like Sussan Ley and Melissa McIntosh, underscores the need for external pressure. The US must act not only to protect its own citizens but also to support Australians who value liberty and oppose their government's overreach.
In conclusion, Australia's eSafety regime, under Julie Inman Grant, poses a significant threat to global free speech by attempting to regulate content beyond its borders. The United States must respond with a combination of diplomatic engagement, legislative protections, public advocacy, platform support, and, if necessary, targeted sanctions. These measures will defend American sovereignty, uphold free expression, and send a message to allies and adversaries alike: no nation, however close, can dictate what Americans say or see online. By acting decisively, the US can preserve the internet as a space for open discourse and prevent the slide toward bureaucratic control. Australians, too, deserve a government that defends liberty, not one that exports censorship, if only they would wake up and stop voting for tyranny, digging their own graves.
https://goodsauce.news/australias-unelected-bureaucrat-defining-truth/
"Australia's eSafety Commissioner has just been named in a US congressional report for colluding with foreign governments and corporate cartels to censor American speech. This is a diplomatic scandal—and a threat to free expression worldwide.
Julie Inman Grant has been caught coordinating with global bureaucracies and corporate activists to pressure platforms like X to silence speech—even beyond Australian borders.
And now the world is taking notice.
It lays out how GARM—a WEF-linked advertising coalition—worked with Grant and others to blacklist voices they disagreed with under the guise of "brand safety."
The goal? Global censorship
eKaren coordinated with GARM to influence her "regulatory decisions"
She demanded global takedowns of content—even in the US
She joined efforts to pressure X after the Musk takeover
This isn't just overreach. It's abuse of office.
One example: After the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, Grant ordered X to block related content—not just in Australia, but globally. Even the victim opposed the censorship. An Australian court later ruled against her.
But the damage was done.
This kind of pressure campaign sets a chilling precedent: That unelected bureaucrats in Canberra can dictate what Americans are allowed to see online. No democratic nation should tolerate that. It's a direct violation of national sovereignty and free speech.
The report also exposes GARM itself:
A World Economic Forum-linked initiative
Backed by corporate giants like Bud Light's AB InBev, Disney, Mastercard & more
Aims to demonetise any content it deems "harmful"—including traditional views on gender, race, or faith
Far from being a neutral regulator, Julie Inman Grant openly praised GARM's power to "hold platforms to account." She joined the very networks now exposed for manipulating media and advertising to advance ideological goals.
This is not online safety. It's ideological control.
Australia's international standing is now at risk. We have a senior official actively undermining the principle of free expression—and damaging relations with our most important ally in the process. This cannot be brushed aside. The Opposition has a responsibility here. Sussan Ley and Melissa McIntosh must publicly call for Grant's resignation.
If she refuses to go, Anthony Albanese should remove her immediately. This is a test of political courage—for both sides of the aisle.
And if the Liberal Party won't speak out now—against global censorship cartels, against ideological overreach, against attacks on speech—what exactly are they offering? A quiet merger with Labor in all but name?
Australians deserve better.
Free nations don't export censorship. They defend liberty—at home and abroad.
We can't let unelected bureaucrats define what truth is or silence those who challenge them."