Command Post: Australia is coming soon. And not before time. Find out more at georgelink.net/4oUqC3K

‘Serious Concerns’: US Warns Albanese’ Duty of Care Bill Risks Viewpoint-Based Censorship by @K_Mahlburg [NEWS] The United States government has warned that Labor’s Digital Duty of Care bill risks becoming “a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship” and has called on the Albanese government to abandon plans to force platforms to suppress content. Washington issued its warning in a submission to the Albanese government’s public consultation into the bill, then published the submission on the US Embassy website after the government said submissions will not be made public. The submission questions how the government, or the Communications Minister, would “designate what constitutes ‘foreseeable harm’”. Vague definitions, it argues, mean that “platforms will be incentivised to over-moderate speech that should be protected to avoid regulatory penalties”. The US government lists independent journalists and “other voices whose content touches on sensitive or controversial topics” among those most at risk. It also asked what safeguards would stop officials’ “biases and preferences” from disadvantaging “independent or minority-viewpoint speech”. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells released the bill’s exposure draft on 8 September and flagged that breaches could attract penalties of up to $109.2 million. Public consultation into the bill closed at midday on Tuesday. The Coalition announced on 10 September it opposed the bill in its current form. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has called the draft “a blank cheque for political censorship to the minister and to the government”. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has accused Labor of “copying the Chinese Communist Party’s censorship playbook” and warned that Australia “should be moving away from government censorship, not building the Orwellian machinery for it”. > Platform Design and Global Reach Washington’s submission says the US “has serious concerns” about mandates that “dictate how platforms manage content and users’ feeds”. It singles out “rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements — such as forced chronological feeds or opt-in recommendation systems”. The US asked what criteria would define “foreseeable harm”, who would make that call, and whether users or platforms could appeal. Even without an explicit mandate, it warns, platforms could default to “pre-emptive censorship to avoid the risk of liability”. Most affected platforms are US-headquartered, the submission notes, and build features globally rather than market by market. Design mandates, it says, “may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally”. If other nations impose conflicting mandates, it warns, platforms face pressure towards a “most-restrictive-jurisdiction outcome”. The US restated its opposition to foreign measures producing “extraterritorial censorship of protected speech by Americans online”. It urges Australia to weigh how prescriptive mandates could affect its reputation as “a jurisdiction that enables innovation — rather than one that unduly constrains the development and use of technology”. > Prime Minister’s Response Albanese, who is in the US for the United Nations General Assembly, faced questions about the submission in New York on Tuesday evening. One reporter, speaking to the Prime Minister before a dinner hosted by US President Donald Trump, called the US statement “pretty hostile” and asked whether the US response concerned him. In footage of the exchange, Albanese replied that he would “always stand up for Australia’s national interests”. “It’s not about giving government control, it’s about giving people back control over what they receive on their devices,” he said. Noting that the bill was yet to be introduced to Parliament, he added, “I hope the whole of the Parliament supports it. This should not be a partisan issue.” In June, Albanese warned against “the rise of populism whether of the right or the left,” while The Sydney Morning Herald reported in August that the Prime Minister’s plan to “beef up Australia’s heavy regulation of big tech” was aimed at countering “the rise of populism exemplified by One Nation”. Greens communications spokesman Senator David Shoebridge, whom Labor will rely on to pass the bill, has cited Pauline Hanson and the Coalition in arguing for the bill, saying, “Every time you get Pauline Hanson come out and say well actually she wants to promote hateful messages against First Nations peoples or you get the Coalition coming out and saying that they want to promote genocide denial, I think it points out we need digital duty of care so that those messages aren’t amplified.” Liberal Senator Alex Antic has warned that the bill revives Labor’s misinformation bill, which was withdrawn in November 2024. He pointed to the United Kingdom, where he said “citizens are being imprisoned for ‘harmful’ social media posts”. “If there was a mechanism for allowing political opinions to be considered psychologically harmful, this new power is it,” he said. Read the full piece at dailydeclaration.org.au/2026…

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Fulton Sheen explained that since God is the source of our rights, the communist must wage war against God in order to deny the true source of our rights

Here's a baby born at 25 weeks. Not a clump of cells. Not a parasite. Not a thing. A baby. A human being. Who should not be aborted.

Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care Bill will dramatically expand eSafety’s investigative powers, including the authority to operate “sock puppet” accounts & collect sensitive information without consent. I went through the Bill with @liber_net. Here’s what we found. 🧵

Read the Canberra Declaration’s Submission to the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 The Canberra Declaration has submitted to the Federal Government’s Exposure Draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, warning that a Bill sold as child protection is, in its actual text, a mechanism for controlling lawful political and religious speech. Every parent wants their children safe online. The Canberra Declaration, representing over 98,000 signatories committed to Christian values and freedoms, does not dispute that social media has real and documented harms for young Australians, or that government has a legitimate role in addressing them. But a bill’s stated purpose and its actual text are two different things. When we read the Digital Duty of Care Bill closely, what we found should concern every Australian who values free speech and religious freedom. > A Bill with an Open Definition of “Harm” The entire structure of this Bill depends on one word: harm. And the Bill leaves its definition open. Proposed section 25C(1)(m) gives the Minister for Communications power to declare “any other material or conduct” seriously harmful, by legislative instrument, whenever she is personally “satisfied” it may cause serious harm. There is no requirement that the material be unlawful. No requirement a court has ruled on it. No requirement Parliament debates the category before it takes effect. The Minister’s satisfaction is the entire legal test. The rule of law is opposed to rule by decree — or “satisfaction.” A law built on the shifting judgment of whoever holds office, rather than on fixed, knowable standards, isn’t a safeguard. It’s a recipe for disaster. > A Clause That Targets a Viewpoint, Not a Crime Proposed section 25D(1)(c) deems material harmful to children if it “encourages or promotes hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality.” This is not a description of a crime. It is a description of an opinion. It is entirely lawful in Australia to teach that a husband and wife hold different, complementary responsibilities within marriage. It’s lawful to argue against gender quotas, or to argue that biological males should not compete in women’s sport. None of these is a crime. Yet under this Bill, whether any of them counts as a “hostile attitude” can be decided by one person’s satisfaction. Even the Coalition’s own analysis of the exposure draft warns that “poorly defined tests risk catching legitimate political, religious, cultural and social debate.” > A Promise in a Policy Paper, Not in the Law The government’s accompanying policy paper promises that any rule made under this framework “will be required to include a statement of the rule’s compatibility with Australia’s human rights obligations, including freedom of expression.” We read the 75-page exposure draft in full. The words “freedom of expression,” “human rights,” “compatibility,” and “scrutiny” do not appear anywhere. Whatever safeguard the government intends exists only in a document that can be quietly revised or dropped, with no parliamentary process required. A safeguard that matters belongs in the Bill. This one isn’t. Notably, the Digital Duty of Care Bill does carve out one specific protection: proposed section 26(7) exempts “lawful communications occurring in private solely between consenting adults” from the duty of care entirely. The government evidently knows how to write a clause that places a category of speech beyond the Minister’s reach. It simply hasn’t done so for lawful political communication or lawful religious teaching. Why not? > The Minister Has Already Told Us Who Decides Asked directly who would decide what counts as a new serious harm, Minister Wells answered plainly: “the test for what would constitute a new serious harm would ultimately be made by me.” Pressed on the ABC’s Insiders about the missing definition, her response described only procedure — consultation with the eSafety Commissioner, and the theoretical right of a senator to move a disallowance motion. Neither answer defines the word “harm.” Both confirm that whoever holds the office will supply the definition, case by case. This is not a new pattern. The eSafety Commissioner’s powers began in 2015 confined narrowly to cyberbullying material targeting children, then widened with the Online Safety Act 2021. This Bill widens them again — attaching that growth to open-ended ministerial discretion rather than a fixed, debated list. > A Regulator That Has Already Gotten It Wrong This is not a hypothetical fear. In 2024, a delegate of the eSafety Commissioner issued a removal notice against Canadian activist Christopher Elston (“Billboard Chris”) for sharing and criticising a news article. It took a full year and an independent tribunal to correct. In July 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal set the notice aside, finding an ordinary reasonable person “would not conclude that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm.” The eSafety Commissioner was convinced her decision to ban the post was fully justified. The Tribunal disagreed. Giving greater discretionary power to a regulator with an evident agenda on topics like sexuality and gender is a terrible idea. This Bill does not restrain that discretion. It expands it, backed by a maximum corporate penalty of roughly $109.2 million and a compliance window cut from 48 hours to 24. A platform facing a fine that size, on a deadline that short, over a standard this vague, has every commercial incentive to delete first and never ask questions. That’s not a safety framework. That’s 109.2 million reasons to land on the side of censorship. Parliamentarians Have Said It Themselves: It’s About Censorship Greens Senator David Shoebridge, whose vote the government needs to pass this Bill through the Senate, has already said the quiet part out loud: “… every time you get Pauline Hanson come out and say… she wants to promote hateful messages against First Nations peoples. Or you get the Coalition coming out and saying that they want to promote genocide denial… we need Digital Duty of Care so that those messages aren’t amplified.” A sitting senator holding the balance of power has named a political party and a political leader, by name, as the reason this Digital Duty of Care Bill is needed. Before the exposure draft was released, the Prime Minister warned of “the rise of populism,” with reporting linking his tech agenda directly to countering One Nation. But once the Digital Duty of Care Bill was actually on the table, the language softened to “this is not about giving government control… it’s not about censorship.” Are we to believe what was said before the Bill was drafted, or the talking points released once it was time to sell it to the public? Censorship has already happened to real people holding views this Bill’s “hostile attitudes” clause targets. Queensland psychiatrist Dr Andrew Amos was banned by the Medical Board from posting about gender medicine. Dr Jillian Spencer spent three years suspended for publicly criticising a children’s gender service, before all proceedings against her were finally dropped. These aren’t slippery-slope predictions. They’re the present. > What We Told the Government about the Digital Duty of Care Bill Our submission makes clear: Harm must be defined in the Digital Duty of Care Bill itself, not left to ministerial satisfaction, and should require a connection to conduct that is actually unlawful. Freedom of expression and religious freedom protections belong in the legislation, not in a policy paper that can be discarded without debate. Lawful political and religious speech deserves the same explicit protection the Bill already grants to private communication between consenting adults. Genuine child safety measures should be separated from open-ended discretionary power. We oppose a Bill that uses the language of child safety to build a discretionary power that a senator has openly admitted is aimed at silencing political opponents, and that has already been used, in a narrower form, against people for lawful speech. Read the full piece at dailydeclaration.org.au/2026…

Damn right. We've raised 100k in 4 days. Ordinary Aussies aren't buying the MSM and leftist bs that I'm married to a rapist. What a pathetic and lame attempt to take down my honourable husband and our beautiful family. We will sue them all. This is just the start.

In their first 100 days, @Nigel_Farage and @reformparty_uk should pass legislation to remove @ArchbishopSarah from office if she doesn’t resign.

The vultures are circling. It's not enough that they've destroyed my husband's career and reputation on the false allegation that he's a r*pist and a p*do. Now they're coming for me. These people are vile 🤮 #cancelculture

A landmark Finnish study has found a sharp rise in psychiatric illness among adolescents following sex-alteration procedures. The peer-reviewed study, published in Acta Paediatrica, tracked every young person under 23 who contacted Finland's gender clinics between 1996 and 2019. A total 2,083 individuals were studied, with 16,643 matched controls. They were followed for up to 25 years. Finland's health registers are mandatory, which means no one opts out — this is the complete national picture. The numbers: psychiatric morbidity rose from 9.8% to 60.7% in adolescents who underwent feminising reassignment, and from 21.6% to 54.5% in masculinising reassignment. Even after adjusting for prior psychiatric history, gender-referred adolescents faced five times the risk of male population controls, and three times the risk of female controls. "Psychiatric needs do not subside after medical gender reassignment," the authors concluded. Referrals after 2010 arrived sicker. 47.9% had already needed psychiatric treatment before their first clinic visit, against 15.3% among controls. The authors' read: for some adolescents, gender distress may be secondary to other mental health challenges. The evidence keeps mounting. The silencing continues anyway. How many more adolescents will be told this is "care"?

Has she lost the very last of her remaining marbles? Ms von der Leyen offered Canada associate membership of the EU. That would have been fine if it were not for a tiny little snag: there is no such thing as associate membership of the EU! telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2…

Plot twist: the lone juror was Catholic

RT @SenatorAntic: Unfortunately, this morning my "No Jab No Pay" Repeal Bill was voted down by the Senate with only Senators @PaulineHanson…

My warning from Hungary to America: Never assume that losing an election means simply spending couple years in opposition. In Hungary, the new government is not just reversing conservative policies. It is targeting the institutions, media, businesses, donors, and people associated with the previous conservative era - dismantling what was built and making it harder for conservatives to return. Liberalis can campaign in moderate or even conservative language, win power, and then govern in a very radical, progressive way. I spoke to The Federalist about what is happening in Hungary, how this strategy works, and why American conservatives should pay close attention before the midterms. Read the full story: thefederalist.com/2026/09/16… Thank you @BreccanFThies

I dare them to do Mohammad.

Le président Zelensky avait l’intention de signer "les Accords de Minsk 2.0" qui établissait un accord de paix avec la Russie, en mars 2022. • L’accord laissait l’Ukraine intacte mais prévoyait des protections pour les Russes ethniques en Ukraine qui étaient massacrées par des commandos ukrainiens. • Poutine a commencé à retirer ses troupes. Cependant, le Premier ministre britannique Boris Johnson a été envoyé en Ukraine pour « torpiller l’accord ». • Lorsqu’on les a pressés à dire la vérité, les dirigeants américains ont déclaré que les objectifs étaient le changement de régime en Russie et l’épuisement de l’armée russe. "Donc, encore une fois, cela n’a rien à voir avec l’Ukraine", a déclaré à Tucker Carlson le Secrétaire à la santé des États-Unis, Robert Francis Kennedy. "Ce que cela signifie, c’est que l’Ukraine est un proxy dans une lutte essentiellement entre deux superpuissances, entre la Russie et les États-Unis. Et nous avons maintenant engagé 113 milliards de dollars là-bas. » Si un personnage aussi important du gouvernement des États-Unis reconnaît la responsabilité directe de son pays dans la guerre en Ukraine, la posture mensongère des Européens se fragilise.

Welcome to 2026, where feminists thinks Sydney Sweeney doing a sexy ad is setting women back, but Lindsay Clancy killing her three kids and crying postpartum psychosis isn’t.

Baby. Not a clump of cells.

🚨🇭🇺 Viktor Orbán: One day Europeans will wake up and realize the real threat was never Russia. It was the corrupt globalists sitting right inside the European Parliament destroying the continent.