The U.S. Congress has called on Australia’s internet regulator to testify over concerns that Australian online safety laws are infringing on free speech rights in America. Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, chair of the Judiciary Committee, formally requested eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to appear by December 2, describing her as a “noted zealot for global takedowns” in a letter that highlights escalating trans-Pacific tensions over internet governance.
In the communication dated November 19, Jordan expressed deep concerns that Australia’s Online Safety Act imposes extraterritorial obligations on American tech companies and directly threatens the speech of U.S. citizens. He argued that Inman Grant’s expansive interpretation of the law, including claims of jurisdiction over content outside Australia, sets a dangerous precedent for global censorship. The letter emphasized that such enforcement could empower other governments to replicate similar measures, potentially undermining free expression worldwide.
The congressional demand comes against a backdrop of ongoing disputes between Australia and major social media platforms. Last year, Inman Grant took legal action against Elon Musk’s X platform to remove videos of a Sydney church stabbing that was declared a terrorist incident and livestreamed online. eSafety threatened hefty fines if X did not remove the videos globally, citing risks of inciting further violence. X refused to comply with the global takedown order, leading to the case being dropped, though the platform eventually blocked access within Australia.
A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner confirmed that Inman Grant is considering the congressional request but stressed that her role is to enforce Australian laws as accountable to the country’s parliament and communications minister. The statement clarified that eSafety’s actions do not prevent American companies from displaying content to American users, directly addressing Jordan’s allegations of overreach and asserting the regulator’s focus on domestic compliance.
Jordan’s letter also referenced a speech Inman Grant gave at Stanford University earlier this year, which he labeled “troubling” due to the university’s alleged past efforts to censor lawful American speech. He accused her of colluding with pro-censorship entities in the U.S. to facilitate what he termed Australia’s “global censorship regimes,” suggesting coordinated efforts that extend beyond national borders and could influence international policy.
The timing of the congressional call is significant, as it precedes Australia’s implementation of a social media ban for users under 16, scheduled to start on December 10. This new policy has sparked widespread debate about its potential global implications, with critics warning it could inspire similar age-restrictive measures in other countries while supporters argue it is necessary for youth protection.
If Inman Grant agrees to testify, it could mark a critical juncture in international discussions on balancing online safety with free speech. The outcome may influence how nations navigate the complexities of cross-border internet regulation, potentially leading to new frameworks that address both security concerns and fundamental rights. This case underscores the growing challenges in managing a globally connected digital environment amid divergent legal and cultural standards.
