Free Speech

What Julie Inman Grant has in Store for You

American–born Julie Inman Grant is a key architect of the multigovernmental “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” to censor the speech that politicians and government bureaucrats fear.

X owner Elon Musk should be thrown in prison, said a senator in Australia yesterday, because he refuses to delete a video of a recent stabbing from X globally. “Whatever Elon Musk is on,” said Senator Jacqui Lambie, “it’s disgusting behavior. Quite frankly, the bloke should be jailed and the key thrown away.”

But what’s truly disgusting behavior is calling for the incarceration of someone for refusing to censor the entire global Internet on behalf of a single nation. It is not the right of any nation to decide what should be on the Internet around the world. “No president, prime minister, or judge,” responded Musk on X, “has authority over all of Earth!” He’s right.

It’s true that violent content online can be disturbing. I think platforms should put warning labels on them and find some way to prevent minors from seeing it. I also think there are real privacy concerns that should be addressed.

But violence is not the only thing the Australian government has told X to remove. It has also targeted political speech. And nothing can justify the Australian government censoring the entire global Internet of content it does not like.

Many of us, myself included, have long suspected that government censors in Ireland, Scotland, and the European Union would attempt to censor the whole of the Internet, not just in their own countries. With Brazil and now Australia demanding the power to censor the whole internet, it’s clear that our fears were more than justified.

And now, Public has learned that there is a formal government censorship network called the “Global Online Safety Regulators Network,” which Australia’s top Internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, who enjoys the right to free and unfettered speech courtesy of the Fist Amendment but would deny it to others, described at World Economic Forum. The group includes censors from Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK, and Fiji.

But before getting to that, it’s first important to understand just how powerful she is. Here is Julie Inman Grant, boasting of her extraordinary censorship powers (emphasis added):

Yes, we do regulate the platforms. We have a big stick that we can use when we want to …. They’re going to be regulated in ways that they don’t want to be regulated.

In a different video, Inman Grant said,

We also have some pretty significant ISP blocking powers. We just had some new powers given to us… in addition to be able to compel that takedown, to be able to fine perpetrators as a deterrent effect, and fine content hosts that don’t take down this content, um, we can, um, We also have something in this new legislation called the basic online safety expectations.

She goes on to say that she is already working with Ireland, the UK, France, and other governments around the world.

We use the tools that we have, and we can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go much further, um, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe … with the U. K. With Ireland and with Fiji in November 2022, we launched the global online safety regulators network that has now grown to seven independent regulators, including France, South Korea, South Africa and a number of countries are serving as observers.

At the World Economic Forum, Inman Grant said she had launched a global censorship body called “the Global Online Safety Regulators Network” to unify governments around censorship “So that we could have a form to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that. But also make sure that what we’re going to have differences in our regulatory schemes, there would be common values that drive us together.”

This global censorship body gives governments extraordinary power to invade privacy, explained Inman-Grant:

What this legislation will give us is the ability to compel basic device information and account information. And more and more and more social media companies are starting to collect phone numbers and email addresses so that our investigators can at least find a place to issue a notice or a takedown notice or infringement notice of some sort.

Inman Grant may be working with other governments to create identity requirements and to stamp out Virtual Private Networks, which millions of people in China and other totalitarian societies use to access the free Internet. “You can use VPNs, you can use burner phones,” she said, “different SIM cards every day. So it’s going to be a challenge for a long time because, again, the internet’s global. If there is no such thing as a kind of global identity system or even a piece of identity everybody can agree with, you know, should we all be sharing our driver’s license or our passports?”

At that same World Economic Forum meeting, one of the European Union’s top censors, Věra Jourová, called for censorship to avoid “events like January 6”, and to fight hate speech.

“The same thing, uh, reaction on the 6th of January, 2020. So, in Europe, of course, we have our history. We had to take action against hate speech. Because what it is, anti-Semitism, racism, LGBT, the menu is always the same.”

Jourva explains that the EU and Australia intend to pressure social media companies to implement global censorship to simplify things.

Who is Jourova? Why she’s the same person that public caught spreading disinformation about a new Russiagate hoax two weeks ago.

Who is Julie Inman Grant? This clip will give you a pretty good idea.

Amerian journalist Michael Shellenberger is the co-author with Matt Taibbi of the Twitter Files. He blogs at

5 thoughts on “What Julie Inman Grant has in Store for You

  • ianl says:

    I admit I do worry about our eSafety Commisar’s own safety. I hope, and hope most fervently, that she is watching her back, although some others have wondered why she left Twitter management.

    It seems the current Canadian Bill C-63 (apparently not yet through the Canadian Parliament) contains a *retrospective* clause. That is, anything that one may have in the past posted online that now “offends” somebody else is subject to complaint and in extremis, large personal fines and jail. I suppose this idea couldn’t possibly ever apply here in Aus, could it ?

    [Perhaps unlike quite a few others, I have refused to put a “profile” on what is termed social media such as Facebook, Linked In, Twitter, X and so on. I always supposed this could become dangerous]

  • Dallas Beaufort says:

    Gob smacking

  • talldad says:

    So this e safety agency has already breached the Privacy Act by collecting personal data, and doing internal data matching – essentially what “phishing” scammers do?

    My, what a wonderful target for online criminals to infiltrate – a network of agencies doing their hard work for them!

    And this EU (but worldwide) hatred for hate speech?? So, every time these agency heads speak, are they engaging in (self-refuting) hate speech themselves?

  • Trevor Bailey says:

    As recommended by Salvatore Babones, I’ve discovered the Free Speech Union has now arrived in Australia. You too can Google the website and join. If you need a reason to even bother, recall Vaclav Havel wrote ‘The Power of the Powerless’ in 1978. He spent nearly 4 years in prison for having done so, but it inspired The Velvet Revolution that defeated Eurocommunism (the first time, at least…)

  • Stephen Due says:

    The obvious problem with censorship is that the censors themselves are so abundantly liable to error. Throughout Covid, the official government view on everything – masking, injections, medical treatment, lockdowns – was repeatedly wrong. The authorities, zealous but deluded, used various strategies, including censorship by proxy, to obscure the truth. Why would we want them to have more power?
    It is only because official censorship was not entirely successful that real experts, such as the English nurse educator John Campbell (on YouTube) and the Australian immunologist Robert Clancy (Quadrant), were able to disseminate useful information to the public. What government bureaucrats want now is the additional powers needed to silence the Campbells and the Clancys. Having dealt with the opposition by ridiculing and censoring them, the government has a clear billboard on which to display its own fabricated narrative du jour.
    Sadly, it seems that there are no limits to the credulity of a gullible public. The government invariably argues that this very susceptibility to error makes censorship a moral imperative: the public need to be protected from their own folly. But we know from bitter experience that the authorities themselves are equally subject to limitations of intellect, knowledge, and moral standards. Furthermore, the pressure of political loyalties distorts government policy and personal prejudice corrupts the judgement of officials, making them more prone to error than a dispassionate observer. The answer is not more censorship, but more accountability on the part of government ministers and public servants, and more open debate in the public square. [this comment was originally posted on Nathan Livingstone’s piece in error]

Leave a Reply