In a major win for free expression, the Federal Court of Australia handed down a ruling on 18 February 2026 against the eSafety Commissioner, led by Julie Inman Grant. The case involved Sydney mum Celine Baumgarten, who had posted on X (formerly Twitter) questioning the appropriateness of a “queer club” at a Melbourne primary school.
The decision underscores the importance of protecting lawful public debate from government overreach, especially on sensitive issues like education, parental choice, and gender ideology in schools.
How it all began
In mid‑2024, Celine shared a post on X expressing concern about a primary school teacher facilitating a queer club for students aged 5–12. Her post criticised the event as potentially inappropriate for young children, without threats or harassment.
The eSafety Commissioner’s office responded by sending an “informal notice” to X, leading the platform to geo-block the post in Australia. Essentially, the post became inaccessible to Australian users.
Celine challenged this action, arguing that the informal notice amounted to a de facto takedown order under the Online Safety Act 2021, bypassing proper process and legal safeguards.
Tribunal victory
In early 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) sided with Celine. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner’s notice effectively pressured the platform to censor content, without meeting the legal thresholds for cyber-abuse or giving the author a proper chance to defend themselves.
This ruling was seen as a key protection for free speech, demonstrating that public criticism—even on contentious issues—cannot be removed lightly.
Federal Court confirms the win
The eSafety Commissioner appealed to the Federal Court, arguing that informal notices were not binding.
On 18 February 2026, a bench of three justices unanimously upheld the ART’s decision, confirming that such notices can be challenged and are subject to legal scrutiny. The appeal was dismissed, marking a clear defeat for the eSafety Commissioner and a reinforcement of free speech protections.
Why this matters
This case is significant for several reasons:
- It confirms that the Commissioner cannot quietly pressure social media platforms into censoring lawful public debate.
- It provides legal clarity on the limits of the Online Safety Act 2021, particularly in relation to political or ideological commentary.
- It highlights that Australians are entitled to express concerns about schools, education, and children’s exposure to gender ideology without fear of arbitrary takedowns.
Celine’s victory is part of a wider pattern of free speech wins, signalling that government overreach in online content moderation will face scrutiny and can be successfully challenged.
What it Means for Us
At Women Speak Tasmania, we see this ruling as a reminder that freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of public debate, particularly when it comes to protecting children, schools, and the rights of parents to question ideology in education.
Related:
Celine Baumgarten wins against The Machine: latest blow for eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The Australian 19 February 2026. –