05-07-2025: Recently Australia’s “ESafety” Commissioner advised the Federal Government to include YouTube in its proposed ban on the use of social media for those aged 16 and under. Julie Inman Grant reportedly claimed that despite its educational value, the platform is exposing children to disturbing and harmful content.[1] The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024[2] sailed through federal parliament last year as it has the support of both the Labor and Liberal parties. The Bill introduces an obligation on social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent children under 16 years of age from having an account. In the first place, someone who is 16 years of age is hardly a child. Secondly, the notion that politicians are concerned about harm to children is a complete ruse. The same politicians have been slashing funding for education, healthcare and mental health services for at least 35 years without a care in the world. This is not about “ESafety”, but about censorship, and efforts to control who uses social media, and what they post on these platforms.

Violation of civil rights

Even the government funded Human Rights Commission lays out just how Ms Grant and the politicians will systematically strip Australia’s young people of the most elementary of civil rights. While claiming that the move is “consistent” with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), it acknowledges that the censorship Bill will affect (or breach) specific human rights contained in international human rights treaties. This includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The Bill will impact: freedom of expression and access to information (Article 19 ICCPR; Article 13 CRC), freedom of association and peaceful assembly (Article 22 ICCPR; Article 15 CRC, the right to education and development (Articles 28 & 29 CRC), the right to culture leisure and play (Article 13 ICESCR, Article 31 CRC), the right to the highest attainable standard of health, including through access to relevant information (Article 12 ICESCR, Article 24 CRC) and the right to privacy (Article 17 ICCPR, Article 16 CRC).[3] In other words, the Bill violates almost every right a young person has in modern society.

In August last year, on an appearance on the ABC’s Q and A program, Inman Grant all but admitted that social media content which she disagrees with will be removed. Not content that is illegal, or content that is awful (although this is subjective), but content with which she does not agree. Ms Grant cited the example of the UK riots in 2024 and claimed that posts which said “civil war is inevitable” and “people should rise up” constituted “incitement”. A fellow panellist disagreed, saying that these were ideas that some were posting about.[4] It should be noted that Inman Grant was appointed by the then federal government for a five-year term in 2022 on the jaw dropping publicly funded salary of $445 000.[5] She has been a regular enthusiastic attendee at the notorious World Economic Forum (WEF).

“Too much” democracy

Social media online, since its emergence, does have its good and bad sides. Yet, in the sphere of democratic rights under capitalism, we have to admit that it has vastly expanded them. Prior to social media, one had to get involved in movements and political parties to engage in a society wide discussion about public, civil and political issues. Now, anyone can go online and take part, taking into account the fact that not all members of society are on any one platform, or any at all. The social media platforms also have been an equaliser, as all citizens can post online alongside politicians and the powerful elites. Yet what power-hungry politicians cannot stand is the fact that on social media they and their actions can be publicly criticised and even publicly ridiculed, and this can be done anonymously, by using a social media name or tag line. Ending this online anonymity is one of the key drivers of the Orwellian named Online Safety Amendment Bill. Today’s capitalist politicians want the power to arrest and prosecute those who post criticisms of them which are too sharp.

Politicians are aware that if working people have an open avenue to argue against the narrative of the current government, they have less and less power. “Too much” democracy is a bad thing, if they want the masses to accept their version. The Online “Safety” Bill, once enacted, will mean that ALL users of social media will have to provide proof of age to use any social media platform. This essentially means that all social media users will have to show a proof of ID to the social media companies – who will then inevitably hand it over to the police and the authorities when approached by the state. This will mean that even if you use a social media name or tagline, you will be able to be identified. All it will take is for the police to request the ID of a certain person who posted criticism of government policy. The implications of this are outrageous to contemplate, but this is where we are in 2025.

From 2020 to 2022, the Covid reign of terror was a clear example of the government enforcing a false narrative and using state power to ruthlessly suppress those who raised well founded questions about the whole operation. The egregious lockdowns and vaccine mandates had not a shred of scientific legitimacy, and yet police measures were used against those raising the alarm, online and elsewhere. In the conditions of civil war, friends, family members and co-workers were also used to augment the machinery of the state. Social media, although a huge amount of censorship was employed to suppress debate and discussion, allowed *some* avenue for people to question what was happening, and even to organise against its worst outcomes. Labor and Liberal politicians today are seeking to close off even this limited option, in the case of another “pandemic” or major upheaval.

The “ESafety” Commissioner should be sacked, and the position abolished entirely. While there can be some measures to protect children from adult content online, censorship and the prosecution of those posting on social media is obviously not about this. The right to free speech, the right to access information, the right to association, the right to education and more are absolutely critical to any functioning society and must be defended. If capitalism today cannot guarantee basic civil rights, then let it perish. The Tsar of Russia was known for imposing ruthless censorship before he was overthrown in October 1917, the world’s first socialist revolution. Its spectre haunts those who dare repeat history.  

Workers League

www.redfireonline.com

E: workersleague@protonmail.com

---

[1] www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/who-is-julie-inman-grant-esafety-boss-who-thinks-youtube-should-be-banned-plus-what-she-thinks-of-elon-musk/ar-AA1Hk9WT (02-07-2025)

[2] www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd039 (02-07-2025)

[3] www.humanrights.gov.au/about/news/proposed-social-media-ban-under-16s-australia (02-07-2025)

[4] www.news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/australias-esaftey-commissioner-gives (02-07-2025)

[5] www.theunshackled.net/rundown/australias-esafety-commissioner-out-of-control/ (02-07-2025)

Image: http://www.thelist.com