Aletho News

Australian Censor Chief Rejects Claims Digital Duty of Care Will Drive Censorship

Australia is asking platforms to police harm without first agreeing on what harm means

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 12, 2026

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has dismissed as “a stretch” the criticism that the Digital Duty of Care bill would force companies to censor too much online content.

Inman Grant, who will be the one to write the “guidance” that the law would task her office with providing to tech platforms, said that she hasn’t seen any indication of “over-censorship” over the past two years.

“I haven’t seen any indication, particularly over the past two years, that companies are over-censoring,” Inman Grant told the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on Tuesday, on the second day of hearings into the proposed legislation.

Inman Grant thinks that most cases of excessive removals of content happen because automated “moderation” is done without subsequent human review – but she didn’t go into why companies are using this method.

However, it is well known that it is the cheapest and most efficient way for them to comply with the ever-growing number of censorship laws and rules imposed by governments around the world.

Inman Grant’s comments came as a response to criticism that the bill would result in exactly the type of censorship she says is not happening now. On the contrary, she said, “Companies today are trying to show the maximum amount of material, no matter how harmful or hurtful it is.”

Her general counsel Richard Fleming was even more direct: “Over-blocking and over-compliance certainly isn’t what we see.”

The previous day, TikTok’s Jessika Lofstedt told the committee that the bill would replace “certainty with ambiguity and with subjectivity” and result in over-moderation of “contentious” material by platforms trying to avoid penalties.

The Digital Duty of Care bill has already passed the House and the government wants it to be adopted by the end of the year. If it becomes law, it would fine social media up to A$109 million.

The bill also seeks to replace industry codes with eSafety guidance, and Inman Grant is unhappy that this would not be binding, and suggested ministerial directions approved by parliament instead.

Inman Grant told the committee, “We do want to have our cake and eat it too.” She also explained that if the codes were written by a regulator – as opposed to industry – “it’s going to be stronger than the codes that the industry put forward.”

In a response to criticism that the bill does not define what constitutes harmful content, Inman Grant said she was open to narrowing it down, if lawmakers think the current proposal is too broad.

Meanwhile, Sydney Anglican Bishop Michael Stead has warned that the bill’s failure to define harmful content and conduct could leave it up to the government of the day to decide – and target people of faith.

He said that the church’s teaching that men are heads of the household, as well as the Sydney Diocese not ordaining women as priests, could be interpreted by critics as promoting gendered violence and taken offline.

“It ought to matter to all Australians that we uphold the principle of freedom of religion, even if you’re a non-religious person,” he said.

Inman Grant’s response was to say that eSafety has millions of “high-risk, high-harm” targets every day, and that the office would not focus on churches or businesses. However, she didn’t explain how the law would prevent that from happening.

The Coalition has said it will oppose the bill because of fears it will result in more censorship, while the Greens want it to include even heavier fines, as well as the right to sue social media companies – which would lead to even more content being removed before a case even reaches court.

The bill doesn’t define what is harmful content, and who will make that decision? Inman Grant’s office and the government of the day.

The promise that the law won’t be used to go after churches? Just that – a promise, and not a limit written into the law.

November 12, 2026 - Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Australia, Human rights