CSG retweeted
Replying to @dailytelegraph @Philssay
Sack @AnikaWells
#Exclusive - The Coalition is calling for Anika Wells to be sacked after a request to release documents used to justify her near $4000 taxpayer funded weekend, where she also attended a friend’s 40th, were refused.
LATEST ➡️ bit.ly/3UsdoCf
We launched a faster, redesigned app - with all new puzzles: bit.ly/3RceccM
CSG retweeted
The post below includes draft material from the current Royal Commission.
This suggests that there will be some recommendations for Online Censorship of some kind, given its reference to a 'robust enough' regulatory regime to deal with 'unconstrained speech online'.
Unfortunately, the Commission did not bother to engage with Free Speech advocates.
The Australian Government's "Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion" isn't pleased with us. We received some "royal order" (lol, lmao even) not to publish this. Anyway, our lawyer literally told them to go to hell. The rest of what they sent us is redacted because they knew I was going to share it again.
CSG retweeted
Labor’s Digital Duty of Care is an “utter dog’s breakfast” which gives the e-Safety Commissioner even more control over what Australians can see and say online, shadow communications minister Sarah Henderson has said.
news24.com.au/politics/austr…
CSG retweeted
COMMENTARY | The Albanese government will today formally introduce its Digital Duty of Care legislation to require news websites and social media platforms to take down “seriously harmful material", Michael Shellenberger writes: bit.ly/3WtfvWZ
CSG retweeted
Thank you to @shellenberger for visiting Australia, courtesy of @TheIPA, to expose the Albanese government’s draconian digital duty of care laws which must be scrapped.
Not only is Anika Wells using the cloak of child safety to justify this assault on free speech, she was today caught out lying about sweeping powers in her bill which enable @eSafetyOffice to create fake ‘sock puppet’ accounts to track people covertly online.
As @News24Aust journalist Cameron Reddin correctly pointed out, there are no limits on the type of information which could be spread online by the government regulator using these powers.
Replying to @shellenberger
Here is @AnikaWells brazenly lying about the fake accounts ("sock puppets") provision of the law:
She says, "Well, there is nowhere in the bill that gives the government, and by the government, in this instance, the independent regulator, that power. It's just not there."
Yes, it is there, as anyone who reads the bill can see. I'll paste it again below.
CSG retweeted
Wow, wow, wow. I just left the National Press Club where Minister of Communications @AnikaWells spoke. She repeatedly and brazenly lied about the fake accounts, claiming they were only for enforcement, even though the legislation says in black and white that the eSafety Commissioner can use them in unlimited ways for "educational" and "promotional" purposes.
One big moment came when a Politico reporter got up and said something about how mean people like @PaulineHansonOz were to eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant. Seriously. A supposed reporter was white-knighting for a government official during the official Q&A. The same reporter had come up to me before Wells' speech and asked if I had criticized Inman-Grant. Who needs government censors when you have Politico?
After he asked his question, Wells showed the most emotion, describing online criticism of Inman-Grant as "abuse." She also talked about her own staff's supposed suffering. I kid you not. The mask dropped, and you could see what really upset her: people — including a sitting Senator — criticizing government officials.
After gaslighting the audience about fake accounts, Wells repeatedly insisted the government wasn't trying to censor content. She said this after filling her speech with examples of content she claimed harmed people. You couldn't make it up.
This legislation is the culmination of decades of progressives equating words with physical violence. Wells cynically compared her legislation to prevent psychological "harm" to various laws that protect people from physical harm, like seat belt laws.
BTW, Wells never said what content it was that she thought caused eating disorders. Pictures of skinny women? Dietary advice? Who knows. Nobody asked.
Another important moment came when Wells explicitly said Australia would be pursuing censorship alongside other nations, including the UK, France, and Spain—all countries where governments risk losing power to populists.
I spoke with Julie Inman-Grant before the speech began and asked about the fake accounts. She insisted they were there just for enforcement, and when I asked why the law allowed them to be used for government propaganda, she said she might write an "enforcement memo," which, of course, would have no impact on the legislation.
After her speech, I went up to Wells and asked if she was seriously saying the legislation didn't allow the government to use fake accounts for government propaganda. She refused to answer. A man who said he was from the National Press Club stepped in front of me and said I could interview her afterward. But that wasn't possible because they rushed her out the back to avoid any difficult questions.
So there you have it. The pettiest people in Australia are seeking to silence citizens and their political opponents in the name of protecting children. These deeply intolerant and cynical people want to control what you can see and say online. And they're doing it with most of the media's support. Australia has reached a new low in its rapid descent into dogmatism, intolerance, and censorship.
The government today will introduce sweeping censorship that @AlboMP & @AnikaWells lie about. Below she claims the government wants to create a bot army of fake accounts for “research” when the bill clearly intends for them to be used in partisan warfare against fooled citizens.
CSG retweeted
LABOR constantly changing their false justification for the Censorship Bill.
They lie & lie & lie some more.
youtube.com/watch?v=1TcBNjBL… Julie Inman Grant @eSafetyOffice states "everyone" has the right to safety from online abuse, but I have documents that show her assisting her personal friends in targeted online homophobic hate speech and its perfectly ok. Prove me wrong @tweetinjules
CSG retweeted
NEWS/OPINION | Australia's online‑speech regulator, is American and the loudest critic of the Digital Duty of Care bill, Michael Shellenberger, touring the country, is American too. Ironically, ordinary Aussies are silenced about the bill as foreign voices shape the debate.
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Labor Regime Admits It Will Run Unlimited Fake Accounts While Banning Yours
SYDNEY — After decades of dangerous free speech, the Labor Regime has courageously decided that ordinary Australians cannot be trusted with their own feeds.
The Digital Duty of Care™ will allow unlimited government-run educational sock puppets to gently correct polarisation and extremism… the very threats the Prime Minister warned the UN about.
Previous attempts to stop anonymous accounts were clearly insufficient. Now the right people will control the anonymous accounts.
Critics who still cling to the outdated concept of “not being censored” are simply refusing to accept that safety requires a little 1984 energy.
One American visitor said the meeting felt like Soviet Russia. Officials immediately clarified it was actually a safe space for the Censorship Industrial Complex™ to practice not caring.
Anonymous accounts that disagree with the government will be gently sunsetted. Anonymous accounts that agree will be expanded. Equity™.
The craziest, most totalitarian piece of censorship legislation ever introduced in the West is now available for pre-order. 🫶💀
@shellenberger @AnikaWells @BenFordhamLive @AlboMP @2GB873
CSG retweeted
“The government doesn’t even seem to be honest about why they want this.”
Michael Shellenberger, founder of Public and CBR Chair of Politics, discusses his analysis of the Albanese government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care, drawing on work with the IPA to highlight concerns about government censorship and the use of fake social media accounts.
📺 Watch more: bit.ly/4jSp0sy
#Censorship #Politics #Australia
CSG retweeted
“This is by far the worst censorship legislation we have seen in the West.”
Michael Shellenberger, founder of Public and CBR Chair of Politics, warns that the Albanese government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care could give the government sweeping censorship powers and allow it to operate unlimited fake social media accounts.
📺 Watch more: bit.ly/46FPgi4
#Censorship #Politics #Australia
CSG retweeted
I have today lodged a notice of motion for a Senate inquiry into the Albanese government’s deeply flawed Digital Duty of Care exposure draft and bill, once it’s introduced.
I trust this will be supported by the Senate when voted on tomorrow.
The inquiry will be a crucial opportunity to examine Labor’s insidious agenda to control what you say and see online.
It will also shine a light on Anika Wells’ shocking decision to repeal the mandatory codes and standards which require digital platforms to detect and remove child sexual exploitation, terrorism, violence and other unlawful material as well as pornography and other age-restricted material.
In place of the codes and standards is a vague and uncertain obligation to provide, so far as is reasonably practicable, a safe online environment.
How could Anika Wells get this so wrong?
CSG retweeted
The minister for silencing free speech, Ooshies and travel rorts.
We can't trust her. Sign our petition: protectfreespeech.com.au
CSG retweeted
We look forward to submitting to this inquiry, assuming it is voted for.
I have today lodged a notice of motion for a Senate inquiry into the Albanese government’s deeply flawed Digital Duty of Care exposure draft and bill, once it’s introduced.
I trust this will be supported by the Senate when voted on tomorrow.
The inquiry will be a crucial opportunity to examine Labor’s insidious agenda to control what you say and see online.
It will also shine a light on Anika Wells’ shocking decision to repeal the mandatory codes and standards which require digital platforms to detect and remove child sexual exploitation, terrorism, violence and other unlawful material as well as pornography and other age-restricted material.
In place of the codes and standards is a vague and uncertain obligation to provide, so far as is reasonably practicable, a safe online environment.
How could Anika Wells get this so wrong?


























