Michael Schellenberger

Rank 38 of 47

Score -71

@mattjcan Even Australian senators can’t get a straight answer as to why an American, who says she was recruited by the CIA, is their nation’s top censor.

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

559d

CIA RECRUIT IS PURSUING GLOBAL INTERNET CENSORSHIP AS "E-SAFETY" CZAR IN AUSTRALIA

American–born Julie Inman Grant is a key architect of the multigovernmental “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” to censor the speech that politicians and government bureaucrats fear.

X

10/30/2025, 12:45:55 PM

In reply to:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Thank you Senator @mattjcan for raising the alarm about the disturbing and unexplained role of Australia’s top “eSafety” censor, Julie Inman-Grant, in secretly coordinating global censorship with UK, EU, Brazil, and Stanford Cyber Policy Center.

Senator Matt Canavan

@mattjcan

Our eSafety Commissioner has lost multiple court cases which reveal that she has been acting beyond the boundaries that the Parliament set for her.

Now the US Congress is concerned that her actions are limiting the First Amendment rights of Americans.

It is time for a proper

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

In the wake of our reporting that Stanford, EU, UK, Brazil, and Australia are involved in a secret global censorship effort, Australian @SenatorAntic took to the floor of the Senate to demand answers. Why is Australia's top "eSafety" censor demanding total global censorship?

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

In 2022, Obama gave a speech at Stanford Cyber Policy Center advocating sweeping censorship of the Internet. Now, Public has discovered the same Center last month hosted a secret meeting with EU, UK, Brazil, & Australia officials to plot global censorship — including of the US.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing concerns about global internet censorship and the role of an Australian official allegedly linked to the CIA. It questions transparency and accountability in governmental actions, which are significant public issues.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement raises concerns about transparency and accountability, which can be seen as striving to do no harm by advocating for clarity in governance. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It questions the actions of a public official, which could be seen as a violation of privacy, but given the public role, it is more about accountability.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by highlighting potential issues in global governance and censorship. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in criticism of public officials and actions, which is constructive if based on facts, but could be seen as speculative without evidence. [-1]