Canadian Chris Elston – better known online as ‘Billboard Chris’ – has won a landmark legal case against Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who had ordered Elon Musk’s X platform to “take down” one of his posts critical of a transgender activist.
Billboard Chris, with the support of Alliance Defending Freedom International and the Human Rights Law Alliance appealed the violation of his right to share his convictions publicly in an online forum at a five-day hearing in April.
X also appealed the e-Safety Commissioner’s decision to block Elston’s post.HRLA Principal Lawyer John Steenhof said the case was an important win for freedom of speech in Australia.
“It is part of a global fight against government censorship,” he said.
“In Western societies, there should be vigorous public debate about contentious ideas and political movements, particularly the dangers to children and to women’s rights presented by transgender ideology.
“This decision will safeguard every Australian’s right to speak truth in the public square even on issues that are in opposition to the political diktats of those in power.
“We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris.”
A father-of-two, ‘Billboard Chris’ posts on social media have gone viral, showing him wearing a sandwich board reading “children cannot consent to puberty blockers” and engaging passersby in conversations about transgender ideology.
In a post on X in February 2024, he shared a Daily Mail article and criticised the suitability of Sydney transgender activist Teddy Cook to be appointed to a World Health Organisation’s “panel of experts”, which advises on global transgender policy.
Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that X remove the content. The social media platform initially refused, but geo-blocked the content in Australia when the Commission issued a formal order.
In its decision of July 1, the Australian Review Tribunal found that Elston’s post did not meet the test for “cyber-abuse of an Australian Adult” under the Online Safety Act and that the e-Safety Commissioner should not have issued a take down notice.
Led by Melbourne senior barrister Stephen Moloney, Elston argued that his post is an important political discussion of the important public issue of whether transgender activists should be setting clinical guidelines for medical treatments.
Elston argued that free speech should be afforded high levels of protection and that it is protected by the rights of freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution.
In a statement, Elston later said that as a father he has “grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing.”
“No child has ever been born in the wrong body,” he said.
“This is a serious issue with real world implications for families across the globe and we need to be able to discuss it.
“Ultimately, the message I wanted to communicate with this post is that children struggling with gender dysphoria deserve better than ‘guidelines’ written by activists who only want to push them in one direction.”
