A legal battle over online speech has ended in a major courtroom victory for a Canadian activist and the social media platform X in Australia.

A Melbourne tribunal has overturned a takedown order issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, concluding that a 2024 post by Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston did not legally qualify as cyber abuse, The Christian Post reported.

Elston, a Canadian free speech advocate, faced a takedown order after posting criticism on X regarding trans-identified activist Teddy Cook’s appointment to a World Health Organization expert panel. The post used biological pronouns, which Australia's eSafety Commissioner deemed to be cyber abuse under national law.

Rather than remove the post globally, X chose to comply partially by geo-blocking the content for users within Australia. The platform said it risked an AUD $800,000 fine if it did not follow the removal directive.

In response, both Elston and X jointly challenged the ruling, arguing that the content was part of a broader political conversation. The lawsuit was supported by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, two organizations focusing on civil liberties.

Week-long hearing scrutinizes online speech laws

The Administrative Review Tribunal held a five-day hearing starting March 31, 2025, in Melbourne to review the eSafety Commissioner’s decision. The tribunal evaluated whether Elston’s post met the legal standard of cyber abuse under the terms of Australia’s Online Safety Act.

Deputy President O’Donovan, who presided over the hearing, determined that Elston’s reference to biological pronouns stemmed from a consistent pattern of expression and was not deliberately aimed to harass any individual. The decision emphasized that the post fell within acceptable public discourse.

"I am satisfied that it is his universal practice to refer to a transgender person by the pronouns that correspond to their biological sex at birth," O’Donovan noted in the tribunal’s findings, affirming that such expression did not cross the legal threshold for abuse.

International concerns raise broader questions

This case drew attention outside Australia as debates around censorship and social media regulation have intensified. A May 2025 statement from the U.S. State Department described the takedown action as part of a worrisome global pattern of coercive censorship.

Further scrutiny emerged when a U.S. House Judiciary Committee report revealed coordination between Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a group linked to the World Economic Forum. Internal communications showed the Australian commissioner citing GARM’s strategic influence on regulatory matters.

In light of this, critics expressed concern over international pressure playing a role in domestic content regulation, adding another layer to the legal and political implications of the case.

Responses highlight debate over expression

Reacting to the tribunal’s ruling, Elston described the outcome as a clear affirmation of individual rights. "I’m grateful that truth and common sense have prevailed," he said, adding that it confirmed the government lacked the power to suppress peaceful expression.

Elston also emphasized his broader mission, stating, "My mission is to speak the truth about gender ideology, protecting children across the world from its dangers."

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, welcomed the outcome as a landmark decision. He said the ruling “was a victory not just for Billboard Chris, but for every Australian — and indeed every citizen who values the fundamental right to free speech.”

X defends post as political discourse

The social media platform X, which has often challenged legal orders involving user content, praised the ruling. Its Global Government Affairs Team noted that the post was part of “a broader political discussion involving issues of public interest that are subject to legitimate debate.”

The platform argued that such lawful expression, even when controversial, plays a vital role in democratic societies and should not be subjected to disproportionate suppression by government authorities.

This case becomes one of the most high-profile examples of legal limitations placed on Australia's Online Safety Act, which has been both defended as a protective tool and criticized as an overreach into protected speech.

Going forward, the ruling may influence how other jurisdictions interpret similar laws and assess the boundaries between cyber abuse and public debate, particularly in an increasingly interconnected digital world.