Forces within the United States government are twisting the nation's historic First Amendment to protect the interests of mega-rich tech entrepreneurs seeking to control the digital world as their personal domain.
Digital Tyrants Versus Public Safety
The founding fathers of America would be horrified to see laws created to defend liberty now being used to justify exposing children to bullying, pornography, and psychological violence. These same legal shields now protect the dissemination of hate speech and manipulated images used to defraud the public.
The revolutionaries' cry of 'Sic semper tyrannis' (thus always to tyrants) now finds its target not in a distant monarch, but in the social media giants of 2025. The profound irony of using constitutional rights to defend a privileged few's power over billions is unmistakable.
While Meta's recent move to implement Australia's under-16 social media ban is welcome news, the company resisted this essential protection until forced to comply. Meta, Google, and other tech behemoths have actively lobbied the US government to penalise Australia for what they wrongly claim are restrictions on their right to operate here on their own terms.
Australia's Global Leadership Challenged
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has demonstrated firm resolve against these digital overlords. Responding to Google's threats of a High Court challenge, he stated the government would 'make assessments... independent of any of these threats.' He affirmed the self-evident truth that 'social media has a social responsibility.'
The most brazen act of digital overreach involves the demand for Australia's eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, to appear before the US House Judiciary Committee. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Trump ally, has falsely labelled Commissioner Inman Grant a 'zealot for global takedowns' whose actions 'directly threaten American speech.'
This extraordinary demand stems from the Commissioner's entirely reasonable efforts to remove footage showing an Australian bishop being stabbed during a church service. This was never about free speech; it was about preventing further violence and protecting vulnerable people from traumatic content. The Australian government strongly supported this position at the time.
The Profit Over Protection Battle
The eSafety Commission has clarified that its notices require companies to take reasonable steps, with geo-blocking being an accepted measure that doesn't prevent American companies from showing content to Americans.
The reality is this legal battle centres on platforms' rights to profit from engagement, not the protection of constitutional rights. As experts note, technology companies use engagement strategies to keep people scrolling indefinitely, despite their own internal research demonstrating the harm this causes.
Free speech has never given anyone the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Similarly, the internet cannot function as a digital Wild West where the powerful do as they please while users become products served to advertisers.
The Australian government must maintain its resolve against these digital tyrants, ensuring that safety, particularly for young people, always takes precedence over corporate profit.
