Julie Inman Grant attended the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, taking a break from her role as the Australian Commissioner for eSafety.
Although, comments Grant made regarding free speech, have gone viral online.
“I think we're going to have to think about a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online. You know, from freedom of speech, to the freedom to be free from online violence,” Grant said during one of the summit's many meetings.
What exactly is considered online violence?
According to IGI Global, online violence is “The use of online digital devices or services to engage in activities that result in physical, psychological, emotional self-harm or cause harm to another person.”
Is this the type of “online violence" that Grant is referring to? Or is she referring to the fact that free speech causes online violence?
Australia's Online Safety Act explains that the Commissioner for eSafety has been given “substantial new powers to protect all Australians across most online platforms and forums where people can experience abuse or be exposed to harmful content."
It is fair to say crimes committed online should be reported, and the Australian government has every right to enforce those laws; however, when it comes to freedom of speech and expressing opinions on the Internet, that's where the line becomes less clear.
Having an opinion online shouldn't be considered “abuse.”
According to Valiant News:
Unsurprisingly, Imran Grant is currently working with the White House Gender Policy Council, and also has a position on the WEF’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety. Only last week, she appeared on a panel organised by the left-wing, anti-free speech group, Center for Countering Digital Hate, that has targeted conservative news sites to remove them from Google AdSense.
As we've seen over the past two years during the COVID-19 pandemic, when anyone “questions the science” of vaccines, it's considered misinformation.
Why can't someone talk freely about vaccine injuries, or seek more information about side effects, without being scrutinized? Are these the examples of what could be censored in the future? Accounts are being banned for spreading misinformation about vaccines, even though some of the materials are, in fact, true.
Is her mission to get rid of free speech as we know it entirely?
In Canada, freedom of speech is protected through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but with new sections of government like Australia's eSafety Commissioner popping up, well, let's just say we don't want to give Justin Trudeau any ideas.