The Digital Duty of Care Bill

‘Let Them Look Like Clowns’ Says Free-Speech Advocate on Digital Duty of Care Bill

The co-founder of Free Speech Union of Australia, Reuben Kirkham, has cheered on the federal Albanese government with its Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 — but not to succeed.

“If they want to screw it up, let them screw it up. Let them look like clowns,” he told The Daily Declaration during an Australian Jewish Association video conference.

“All we can do is make them look like idiots with the more submissions people put in.”

If passed, the Draft Bill would completely overhaul Australia’s online safety protocols and introduce a new statutory digital duty of care, with Kirkham and fellow critics arguing it would lead to mass censorship and greatly erode our freedom of speech.

In a disastrous interview with News 24 last month, Communications Minister Anika Wells refused six times to rule out a reincarnation of misinformation laws under this bill proposal.

It is this lack of clarity that Kirkham believes will only help him in his efforts to see the bill not get passed, after it received a public rebuke from the Trump Administration.

“They’re persuading the Trump Administration that they need to take stronger steps to deal with online censorship,” he added.

“What I’m more worried about is the abuse of power, so if they are distorting platforms, is that going to distort elections?

“Are we going to have, for example, internal platforms like in workplaces, where speech is censored and skewed?

“Are people going to be punished for what they’ve said online?

“It’s where this all ends up, because they’re on their censorship train and they’re not going to get off it.”

Trump Administration’s Concerns Over Broad Internet Censorship

The Trump Administration has serious concerns about the Albanese Government’s stated goal of mandating broad “duty of care” requirements that dictate how online platforms manage content and user feeds, as published by the US Embassy and Consulates in Australia.

Concerns include how the Albanese Government or Communications Minister would designate “foreseeable harm”, and any resulting requirement that platforms alter their algorithmic systems to suppress freedom of expression.

“A framework that empowers governments to enforce vague definitions of ‘harm’ risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship, as platforms will be incentivised to over-moderate speech that should be protected to avoid regulatory penalties,” Kirkham said.

Kirkham said whether or not the Digital Duty of Care Bill gets passed would come down to how the Greens perceive it in the Senate.

“It’s going to be very interesting to see what they do,” he said.

“Can they agree with Labor on a digital duty of care? And that’s where it gets interesting. What’s going to be in it, and will they understand what they’re agreeing to?

“Will they understand the environmental implications when all that AI censorship is going to require those data centres that they oppose?

“Perhaps the Greens think there is an advantage in driving people away from X onto other platforms?”

Kirkham said another concern about the Digital Duty of Care Bill passing would be if a media outlet is critical of Hamas’ October 7, 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel.

He believes Israeli Defence Forces’ vision of the terrorist attacks, for example, running on a Reuters-partnered platform, could lead to a regulator regarding the repeated depiction of armed attacks on unarmed civilians as cruelty that incites and supports such violence.

“Even though it’s actually criticising it, which is remarkable,” he said.

“This is footage supplied by the IDF and published on a Reuters partnered platform, and according to our ‘Alborithm’, this will be censored.”

A Small Victory in the Overall War on Free Speech

In February, Celine Baumgarten celebrated a victory for common sense in the federal court, after a full bench dismissed an appeal brought by the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant.

This was after Baumgarten published her concerns regarding a queer club online, which was operating in a Melbourne primary school.

“What started this was I posted a 53-second video on X criticising a Melbourne primary school that was operating a queer club for kids eight to 12 years old,” she told the Chris Smith Across Australia Podcast.

“The queer club was published in their public newsletter that was available to anyone – it wasn’t leaked to me.

“Within a week, it (my post) was taken down at the behest of our eSafety Commissioner, so I challenged that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with the help of the Free Speech Union.

“We won that fairly decisively.”

Baumgarten said there was “no place for a queer club in any school, let alone a primary school” in her post, criticising the school’s principals.

This led to the post being taken down and her subsequent legal battle against Inman-Grant.

It was ruled that the informal notices scheme that the eSafety department uses to operate and take down posts, such as Baumgarten’s, was deemed unlawful for working outside the Online Safety Act.

Inman-Grant appealed to the federal court to overturn the decision of the tribunal, where the process was deemed to be correctly adjudicated in the first instance.

Baumgarten said this ruling, with the help of Kirkham’s Free Speech Union of Australia, would put a massive spotlight on eSafety’s informal notice scheme processes when it attempts to take down or censor future online posts.

Kirkham said people on both the left and right of the political spectrum across the nation were concerned at the way Baumgarten was treated in her fight against the eSafety Commissioner.

Her legal team estimated the case cost taxpayers more than $250,000 in the eSafety department’s efforts to censor her.

“Some of the commentary was quite extraordinary. This is Australian public law essentially saying that this was about the fundamental misuse of government power,” Kirkham said.

“Across the political spectrum, you had a video about a queer club in a primary school turning into people who are relatively left-leaning, judges and academics who were very angry about it because of the process, not the content.”

As significant as Baumgarten’s legal victory was for supporters of free speech in Australia, Kirkham had the following warning about the Digital Duty of Care Bill.

“It is perhaps an attempt to get around the Baumgarten decision,” he said.

“In part, it imposes an unclear duty, which in turn leads to a chilling effect on platforms.

“It is easy to over-censor — you won’t get fined for this.

“This is not just about social media — it covers the entire internet insofar as it is served in Australia.”

If passed, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said these new laws would put the onus on digital service providers to provide a safe online environment, setting minimum standards for the features and tools they use.

“This is not about giving government control, it is about giving people control,” he said.

“Australia is leading the world with our social media age ban and online safety approach.

“This work has been led by parents and advocates and we have backed them. We will continue to do so.”

Digital platforms will be required to document the measures taken to address identified risks of harm to Australian users and ensure these measures remain effective over time.

Failure to comply with the Duty of Care could attract penalties of up to $109.2 million, with Inman-Grant responsible for compliance and enforcement.

“The digital duty of care will ensure online service providers – including some of the most powerful companies in the world – step up and do more to keep Australians safe from harm on their platforms,” Wells said.

---

Image courtesy of Adobe.

---

ODM Daily Commentary

Let’s be honest: the Digital Duty of Care Bill is not about safety. It is about control. It is about censorship. And it is about silencing anyone who dares to disagree with the government’s approved narrative.

The article from The Daily Declaration reports on the fight against this dangerous legislation. Reuben Kirkham, co-founder of the Free Speech Union of Australia, has a strategy: let them screw it up. Let them look like clowns. The more submissions people put in, the more they will be exposed as idiots.

The Trump Administration has serious concerns. The US Embassy published a statement warning that a framework empowering governments to enforce vague definitions of “harm” risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship. Platforms will be incentivised to over-moderate speech to avoid regulatory penalties. This is not speculation. It is what is happening.

Communications Minister Anika Wells refused six times to rule out a reincarnation of the misinformation laws under this bill. That tells you everything you need to know. They are trying to smuggle the defeated misinformation bill back through Parliament.

Kirkham’s concerns are profound. If the government is distorting platforms, is that going to distort elections? Will internal platforms in workplaces be censored and skewed? Will people be punished for what they have said online? “It’s where this all ends up,” he says, “because they’re on their censorship train and they’re not going to get off it.”

The article also highlights the case of Celine Baumgarten. She posted a 53-second video criticising a Melbourne primary school for operating a queer club for kids aged eight to 12. Within a week, her post was taken down at the behest of the eSafety Commissioner. She challenged the decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with the help of the Free Speech Union. She won. The eSafety Commissioner’s informal notices scheme was deemed unlawful. The Commissioner appealed. The full bench dismissed the appeal. Baumgarten won again.

This is a small victory. But Kirkham warns that the Digital Duty of Care Bill is an attempt to get around the Baumgarten decision. It imposes an unclear duty, which leads to a chilling effect on platforms. It is easy to over-censor because you will not get fined for it. And it covers the entire internet, not just social media.

The article concludes with the government’s justifications. Albanese says it is about giving people control. Wells says it will keep Australians safe. But we know what it really is. It is about power. It is about silencing dissent. And it is about making sure that the government decides what is true and what is not.

So here is the challenge: oppose the Digital Duty of Care Bill. Make submissions. Expose the lies. And refuse to let Australia become a censorship state.

Let them look like clowns. Because that is exactly what they are.

---

Keywords: Digital Duty of Care Bill, free speech, Reuben Kirkham, Free Speech Union of Australia, Anika Wells, Anthony Albanese, censorship, eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, Celine Baumgarten, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Federal Court, queer club, misinformation laws, Trump Administration, viewpoint-based censorship, vague definitions of harm, over-moderation, chilling effect, penalties, Online Safety Amendment, Australian Jewish Association, Chris Smith, News 24, data centres, Greens, Senate, elections