Mum Who Exposed Primary School "Queer Club" Beats eSafety Commissioner in Federal Court
A Melbourne primary school ran a "Queer Club" for children as young as eight. When a Western Sydney mother mentioned it, Australia's eSafety Commissioner tried censoring her, but lost in the Full Federal Court.
A "Queer Club" For Eight-Year-Olds
In May 2024, single mother Celine Baumgarten posted a 53-second video to X pointing out something every parent has a right to know: that Montmorency South Primary School in Melbourne had been running a "Queer Club" for students in Years 3 to 6 since May 2023, for children as young as 8. Her video used nothing more than what was already public: screenshots from the school's own newsletter and a teacher's public social media account. No child was named or shown.
Baumgarten's video went further than the club's existence. The school, she said, had adopted "gender inclusive" language, meaning students were no longer simply referred to as boys or girls. For eight-year-olds, in other words, the language of biological reality was quietly being retired by the institution meant to educate them, with no obligation to tell parents, let alone ask them.
One Complaint, One Unelected Bureaucrat, One Censored Mother
Baumgarten's video attracted a complaint to the eSafety Commissioner's office, and what happened next should worry anyone who has ever posted something critical online. The complaint was reviewed by an official named Samantha Caruana, who held no legal authority to force any platform to remove anything. Caruana's own assessment was that the post probably did not meet the legal definition of "cyber-abuse material" under the Online Safety Act. By the law's own terms, that should have ended it.
Instead, Caruana filed a takedown request through X's legal portal anyway. X duly geo-blocked the post from Australian users, meaning Australians were prevented from watching a factual video about their own country's primary school system, on the say-so of one official who had already concluded the post broke no law.
The "Informal" Loophole eSafety Tried to Hide Behind
When Baumgarten fought back, eSafety's defence was revealing. The Commissioner's office argued the takedown request was merely "informal," and therefore couldn't be legally challenged at all, an attempt to claim the power to pressure platforms into silencing Australians while remaining beyond judicial accountability for doing so. It is not the only time this tactic has been used against a critic of gender ideology: Baumgarten's fight closely follows a near-identical tribunal defeat for the Commissioner over a takedown order against Canadian activist Chris "Billboard Chris" Elston.
Also read: NSW Funds New LGBT Legal Service to Enforce Gender Ideology
Courts Say No — Twice
Backed by the Free Speech Union of Australia, Baumgarten took her case to the Administrative Review Tribunal. In February 2025, Justice Emilios Kyrou ruled in her favour. Rather than accept the loss, Commissioner Julie Inman Grant escalated, appealing to the Federal Court and spending yet more public money chasing a mother's already-restored video.
In February 2026, the Full Federal Court, led by Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, dismissed the Commissioner's appeal outright, confirming the tribunal had made no legal error. The eSafety Commissioner's own statement on the loss tried to make something of a single judge's passing comment on the Commissioner's general powers. It doesn't change the result: the appeal failed, and the "informal" label did not shield the agency from scrutiny.
Vindicated
"Amazing, absolutely amazing," Baumgarten said of the result. Her legal team estimates the fight cost taxpayers upwards of $250,000 across the tribunal and the court, all spent chasing down a mother over a video that broke no law, because she was informing parents about a queer club at a public primary school.
References
1. news24.com.au, "Single mum wins legal fight against eSafety boss Julie Inman Grant over post criticising primary school queer club"
2. Binary, "Aussie Mum beats the eSafety Commissioner" — binary.org.au
3. Noticer News, "Aussie woman defeats online censor in free speech battle" — noticer.news
4. Australian Public Law, "The Government is not the same as us: eSafety Commissioner v Baumgarten [2026] FCAFC 12" — auspublaw.org
5. eSafety Commissioner, official statement on the Baumgarten matter — esafety.gov.au
6. Federal Court of Australia, case file: eSafety Commissioner v Celine Gillian Baumgarten — fedcourt.gov.au