The U.S. State Department has criticised Australia for pressuring American tech companies to censor content, specifically highlighting a case involving Canadian activist Chris Elston, also known as “Billboard Chris.” Elston, a vocal opponent of transgender ideology, was recently targeted by the Australian eSafety Commissioner after posting on X about a transgender activist involved in the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) gender care guidelines.

The State Department issued a statement on Thursday condemning foreign efforts to silence political speech online. “Freedom of expression must be protected—online and offline,” the statement read, stressing that censorship—especially when politically motivated—undermines democracy and public safety.

The U.S. specifically took issue with Australia’s demand that X remove Elston’s post, which criticised the WHO expert’s involvement in drafting policies for transgender and non-binary people. The U.S. statement also cited similar instances of government censorship in the EU and Türkiye, where tech companies were pressured to restrict content that challenged political narratives.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety,” the statement reads. “The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression.”

[2/3] Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech; Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting…

— Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor (DRL) (@StateDRL) May 1, 2025

Elston’s post, which included a Daily Mail article about Australian activist Teddy Cook, was flagged as “cyber abuse” by the Australian government under its Online Safety Act. The post, which referred to Cook using biologically accurate pronouns, was deemed “likely to cause serious harm.” Elston added his own commentary, calling Cook’s involvement with the WHO a reflection of ideological bias in global health policy.

Elston has since challenged the removal order in court, with a decision expected later this year. His legal fight has garnered support from several international human rights groups, including ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance.

The incident has put a spotlight on the broader issue of government overreach in online speech regulation, with critics arguing that Australia’s actions are a direct attack on free speech. Elston, who travels the world campaigning against gender transition for children, told the tribunal that his intent was to make a political statement about the ideological influence over global gender policies.

“I believe it’s damaging to teach children that they are born in the wrong body,” Elston testified, adding, “Children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”

The outcome of Elston’s legal challenge could have wider implications for how governments around the world approach content moderation and free speech online, particularly in relation to “politically sensitive” issues like gender identity. The tribunal’s decision is expected in the latter half of this year.