Inman discussed the prospect of re-envisaging what freedom of speech means, while speaking on a May 23rd panel for the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos focused on “Ushering in a Safer Digital Future.”

Inman, who also served as the Director of Public Policy for Twitter in Australia and South East Asia, explained how “we’re going to have to think about a recalibration of a whole range of human rights”:

“We are finding ourselves in a place where we have increasing polarization everywhere, and everything feels binary when it doesn’t need to be – so I think we’re going to have to think about a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online – from freedom of speech, to be free from online violence. Or the right of data protection, to the right of child dignity.”

Inman did not clarify what human rights should be abolished, nor did it clarify what types of people should be denied human rights that other types of people would continue to be allowed to enjoy. Inman also did not make clear which opinion, of which political side, would be considered offensively legitimate, and which opinion of which other political side would be considered offensive to the extent that it should be censored.

The common position in the so-called liberal world until before the World Economic Forum's current proposal to restrict freedom of speech was that any opinion contrary to another opinion may be offensive, but that it is the price to pay for the importance of freedom of constructive criticism, freedom of information even when unpleasant, and freedom of research for open minded science, and all humanity progress that was always based entirely on breaking conventions, challenging status quo, and replacing new ideas against old ideas and wrong beliefs (such as the force by the law believe that the world is flat, for example).

Until the new era, ideas of restricting freedom of expression belonged to dictatorship states, and tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler and Ceausescu. Now they are back in fashion and at the front door. In the name of protecting children which is of course extremely important, the forum of the rich people who for some reason consider themselves enlightened, looking for new ways to deny the legitimacy of political opponents and business competitors.

Surprisingly or not, prior to running Australia’s Office of the eSafety Commissioner, Inman worked for Twitter and Microsoft. From 2009 to 2012, she served as the Global Director of so called Privacy and Internet Safety which was founded by Bill Gates.

The scope of operations for Australia’s eSafety Commission appears to be broad, as the board defines its purpose as “helping safeguard all Australians from online harms and to promote safer, more positive online experiences.”

“We prevent online harm by developing resources and programs based on robust evidence; We protect Australians and alleviate harm with our regulatory and reporting schemes; and we are proactive in minimising harms with initiatives that make our digital environments safer and more inclusive,” adds its mission statement.

Inman’s comments come amidst controversy over the creation of the United states censorship department, a Disinformation Governance Board at the United States Department of Homeland Security, which was temporarily paused due to the partisanship of its leader Nina Jankowicz. Advisory firms linked to Jankowicz, however, appear to still be receiving federal funds to combat whatever they define as “disinformation, even if it a true, real and fully legitimate opinions and expressions.” There is no transparency what information twitter, Facebook pr the government is censoring, therefore it welcome corruption and abuse of power against the right to know, challenge and debate.

One thing is clear: whoever suggest to censor anything without allowing the people to know what is censored and why, is the enemy of the public, a traitor against democracy, and as liberal as the worse dictators in history was.

I am not suggesting, of course, that Julie Inman is dictatorial or corrupt or an enemy of human rights, since everything she censored in life may have been transparent and subject to full transparency and public control. Only those who have the power to censor information on social media and in the news and do so without informing the public that something has been censored and explaining in detail what was the reasons for censorship are the public enemy should be removed from any position that has any impact on the public. We can and must protect the kids from online violence. if we hide from them information without their parents awareness and control, we probably have something wrong to hide. "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." (Louis Brandeis).