US report accuses Australia of 'blocking online speech' on X
Make us a preferred source
Make us a preferred source on Google
The news: The Australian government’s authority to censor opinions expressed on ‘X’ is under scrutiny after an interim staff report released by the US House Judiciary Committee called the activities of Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, into question.
The context: In the June 27 report titled: ‘Exporting censorship: How GARM’s advertising cartel helped corporations collude with foreign governments to silence American speech,’ the Committee argues that in recent years, foreign governments have adopted legislation and created regulatory regimes in an effort to target and restrict various forms of online speech.
Calling out Australia, the report says that the country’s current eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has used the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act to regulate so-called “harmful” content and demand that social media platforms remove content globally, including content that would otherwise be accessible to American citizens in the US.
The report says Grant “engaged in an aggressive regulatory campaign against Twitter,” with regard to her order for Twitter to remove content surrounding the stabbing of an Australian bishop. Twitter blocked the content from being shown to Australian users, but “Grant demanded that Twitter block the content from being shown to all Twitter users globally, a position that even the victim of the attack opposed.” The court ruled against Commissioner Grant and her request to keep the material blocked from all Twitter users.
The report argues that GARM, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, colluded with both advertisers and foreign regulators to pressure Twitter to comply with GARM’s demands. In Australia, the report continues, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant relied on GARM to inform her “engagement [with Twitter] and regulatory decisions,” highlighting GARM’s “significant collective power in helping to hold the platforms to account.
The report includes an email chain between Grant and Rob Rakowitz, initiative lead from GARM, which the Committee says shows Ratowitz stating that silencing President Trump was his “main thing,” likening the President’s rhetoric to a “contagion” that he must contain “to protect infection overall.”
The report also alleges that GARM (via Ratowitz) coordinated with Commissioner Grant to identify areas in which they could align their responses to Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. The report goes on to state that Grant also requested that GARM share information with her that could inform her regulatory decisions in Australia, writing that GARM “ha[s] some very powerful levers at [its] disposal. We would be grateful if GARM can keep us updated on how Twitter responds and share any information, so we can take into account in our engagement and regulatory decisions.”
The report also criticises the European Commission’s Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, arguing that the rules are used to pressure American companies to change their behaviour, incentivising “social media platforms to shift their moderation policies to align more closely with the preferences and directives of European regulators.”
The Committee’s report concludes that “GARM’s coordinated international efforts—with its commercial might and foreign regulator collusion—constrain citizens’ ability to access content freely, contravening free speech principles, undermining consumer choice, and posing serious antitrust concerns.”
The sources: House Judiciary Committee, Report press release
