X has claimed another victory for free speech, this time in Australia, where it’s won another challenge against the rulings of the nation’s online safety group.

The case stems from an incident in March last year, in which Australia’s eSafety Commissioner requested that X remove a post that included “degrading” language in criticism of a person who had been appointed by the World Health Organization to serve as an expert on transgender issues. The Commissioner’s ruling came with a potential $800k fine if X refused to comply.

In response, X withheld the post in Australia, but it also sought to challenge the order in court, on the grounds that it was an overreach by the Commissioner.

And this week, X has claimed victory in the case.

As per X:

“In a victory for free speech, X has won its legal challenge against the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s demand to censor a user’s post about gender ideology. The post is part of a broader political discussion involving issues of public interest that are subject to legitimate debate. This is a decisive win for free speech in Australia and around the world.”

In ruling on the case, Australia’s Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that the post in question did not meet the definition of cyber abuse, as initially suggested by the eSafety Commissioner.

As per the ruling:

“The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views [the user] has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent. When the evidence is considered as a whole, I am not satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that by making the post [the user] intended to cause [the subject] serious harm.”

The ruling states that the eSafety Commissioner should not have ordered the removal of the post, and that X was right in its legal challenge against the penalty.

Which is the second significant legal win X has had against Australia’s eSafety chief.

Also last year, the Australian eSafety Commissioner requested that X remove video footage of a stabbing incident in a Sydney church, due to concerns that it could spark further angst and unrest in the community.

The eSafety Commissioner demanded that X remove the video from the app globally, which X also challenged as an overreach, arguing that an Australian regulator has no right to demand removal on a global scale.

The eSafety Commissioner eventually dropped the case, which saw X also claim that as a victory.

The situation also has deeper ties in this instance, because Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant is a former Twitter employee, which some have suggested gives her a level of bias in rulings against Elon Musk’s reformed approach at the app.

I’m not sure that relates, but the Commission has definitely been pressing X to outline its updated moderation measures, in order to ensure that Musk’s changes at the app don’t put local users are risk.

Though again, in both cases, the external ruling is that the Commissioner has overstepped her powers of enforcement, in seeking to punish X beyond the law.

Maybe, you could argue that this has still been somewhat effective, in putting a spotlight on X’s changes in approach, and ensuring that the company knows that it’s being monitored in this respect. But it does seem like there has been a level of overreaction, from an evidence-based approach, in enforcing regulations.

That could be due to Musk’s profile, and the media coverage of changes at the app, or it could relate to Inman-Grant’s personal ties to the platform.

Whatever the reason, X is now able to claim another significant legal win, in its broader push for free speech.

The eSafety Commission also recently filed a new case in the Federal Court to assess whether X should be exempt from its obligations to tackle harmful content.