Free speech in Australia has always come with limits.

Unlike the United States, Australia does not have an explicit constitutional right to freedom of speech. Instead, Australians rely on an implied freedom of political communication, recognised by the High Court, a protection that exists, but can still be overridden by legislation.

Which means when governments decide to regulate speech, they generally can.

And in recent years, both major parties have shown a growing willingness to do exactly that.

A key example is the Online Safety Act 2021, introduced under the Coalition, which significantly expanded the powers of the eSafety Commissioner, a role first created in 2015 to deal with online harms.

On paper, the goal is straightforward: make the internet safer.

In practice, critics argue the system raises more complicated questions; particularly around how decisions are made, and how much visibility the public has into those decisions.

Those concerns came into sharper focus with the case of Celine Baumgarten, an Australian activist known online as “Celine Against the Machine.”

Baumgarten has been outspoken on issues including education, gender identity and free speech. In 2025, she shared content raising concerns about a school-based “queer club” for upper primary students. The post was circulated through the account of Gays Against Groomers, a group that campaigns against what it describes as the sexualisation of children.

Shortly after, Baumgarten was notified by X (formerly Twitter) that her content had been restricted within Australia.

According to reporting from the Free Speech Union of Australia, the platform stated:

“X has received a request from the eSafety Commissioner… in order to comply with X’s obligations under Australia’s local laws, we have withheld this content in Australia.”

The content was not deleted entirely, it remained visible globally, but Australian users could no longer access it.

This is one of the ways Australia’s online safety framework operates.

Platforms may respond to complaints raised through the eSafety Commissioner using a range of mechanisms, including formal legal notices and other forms of engagement. Critics argue that, in some cases, these processes can occur with limited public transparency.

Baumgarten challenged the restriction through the Administrative Review Tribunal, turning the issue into a test case.

In Baumgarten and eSafety Commissioner (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2025] ARTA 59, the Tribunal examined how these processes are handled, particularly whether individuals are properly informed when content is restricted and whether the legal basis for those decisions is made clear.

The outcome has been cited by free speech advocates as a step toward greater transparency.

Free Speech Union of Australia spokesperson Reuben Kirkham said following the decision:

“This is a landmark decision and means that the eSafety Commissioner’s program of secret censorship should be no more.”

Supporters of the current framework argue that these powers are necessary to deal with online abuse, harassment and harmful content.

Critics, however, see a broader issue.

If government regulators can influence what content is visible online, even indirectly, then questions about accountability, consistency and political neutrality become unavoidable.

That concern is not unique to Australia.

During a separate dispute involving the eSafety Commissioner, the global government affairs team at X warned:

“This case has raised important questions about how legal powers can be used to threaten global censorship of speech.”

Baumgarten’s case may centre on a single post.

But it touches on something much bigger.

In a country without strong constitutional speech protections, the boundaries of acceptable public debate are not fixed, they are shaped by legislation, regulators and the systems that sit between governments and the platforms people use every day.

And as those systems evolve, so too does the central question:

Not just what should be restricted, but who gets to decide.

Listen to Joel Jammal’s interview with Celine on Spotify.