Australia's top online safety regulator has issued a robust defence of the nation's pioneering internet laws, pushing back against criticism from a powerful United States congressman. The commissioner argued the legislation is a vital tool for protecting citizens, particularly children, from serious digital harm.
A Transatlantic Clash Over Digital Regulation
The dispute centres on Australia's Online Safety Act 2021, a law that grants the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, significant powers to order tech companies to remove abusive and harmful content. The legislation has drawn the ire of Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the US House Judiciary Committee, who has labelled it a threat to free speech.
In a detailed letter sent in late 2024 and reported in December 2025, Jordan demanded information from several major tech firms about their interactions with the Australian regulator. He expressed concerns that the law could be used to pressure platforms into taking down content on a global scale, potentially infringing on American First Amendment rights.
Inman Grant, a former Twitter and Microsoft executive, has firmly rejected these accusations. She emphasised that the Act includes strong safeguards and is narrowly focused on the most severe types of online content. "The Act is not about censoring political speech or silencing debate," she stated, clarifying its purpose is to address material like child sexual abuse, pro-terror content, and extreme cyberbullying.
Powers and Protections of the Safety Act
The Commissioner outlined the specific mechanisms of the law to counter claims of overreach. A key feature is the "basic online safety expectations" duty, which requires digital services to take reasonable steps to protect their users. Furthermore, the Act's removal powers are primarily targeted at material accessible within Australia, not designed for global takedowns.
Inman Grant pointed to the law's built-in accountability measures, including requirements for transparency reports and the ability for companies to appeal decisions. She framed the legislation as a necessary response to the real-world harm caused by unregulated online spaces, arguing that free speech does not equate to a free pass for causing serious injury.
"We are simply asking these immensely powerful global companies to be better corporate citizens and to prioritise the safety of their users, especially children," she asserted. Her defence highlights a growing global divide in approaches to governing the digital world, pitting a regulatory model focused on user protection against a US-centric view prioritising platform immunity.
Implications for Global Tech Governance
This standoff between Canberra and Washington has significant implications for the future of internet regulation worldwide. Australia's law is seen as a template that other nations, including the UK with its own Online Safety Act, are observing closely. The confrontation underscores the tension between national sovereignty in lawmaking and the borderless nature of the internet.
Inman Grant's firm stance signals that Australia is unwilling to dilute its safety standards under foreign political pressure. The episode also places global technology giants in a difficult position, caught between complying with the laws of sovereign nations and appeasing influential politicians in their home country.
As the debate continues, the core question remains: how can societies balance the fundamental right to free expression with the equally fundamental duty to protect citizens from severe online harm? Australia's eSafety Commissioner has made it clear that, in her view, the two are not mutually exclusive, and robust regulation is essential to achieving both.
