The Noticer X account has been banned.
Elon Musk’s “free speech platform” has told us that although none of our content broke the rules, we cannot stay on the platform due to our name, a name which despite being a normal everyday word is considered “hateful” by Australia’s most powerful Jewish lobby group, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), and US-based Jewish advocacy group the Anti-Defamation League.
This is an attack on free speech, an attack on independent journalism, and yet another example of how Australia’s unpopular and ever-expanding “hate speech” laws, which have been forced on the public by minority lobby groups and the political left, spill over into tech censorship and the stifling of political debate and press freedom.
In this article we provide all the information we have about the ban, address the ECAJ’s recent accusations that we made false claims about them on X and caused a “spike in online threats of violence”, and look at what the ban means for free speech and worsening online censorship in Australia.
THE BAN
On Monday evening our X account was locked. We were told in an email that the account was “reported and has been locked for violating the X Rules”. The email said that both the profile name (The Noticer) and the “profile header”, which contained the name of the site, violated the rules against “hateful conduct”.
We were given the option to change the name and image, or appeal the decision, and we did the latter, but have not received a response more than 24 hours later. The name of our site is not “hateful”, and we do not think we should have to change it. Nor do we want to have to rename our news site so we can post on X. And no matter what we name it, the same people will attack us in the same way and accuse us of the same things.
We have been given no other information, but X has not flagged any issues with our actual content, and in two and a half years we have only ever had one post removed for a rule violation, a video which was then restored on appeal.
X is showing users a variety of different of different messages when they try to access our account, from “@NoticerNews is temporarily unavailable because it violated the X hateful profile policy”, to “@NoticerNews has been withheld in XX in response to a legal demand”. Users in Australia cannot see any of the profile, but some users in some countries, such as Ireland, still have the option to follow.
We have not been notified about any legal demands, and can only speculate about who or what entity reported our account, if it was indeed a report that led to the ban.
However, the ban took place shortly after a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s (PJCIS) review of the White Australia Party ban by the ECAJ, which alleged that one of our posts on X had resulted in “a significant spike in online threats of violence”, and referenced a claim by US Jewish lobby group the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that the term “noticer” is “used by anti-Semites (primarily White supremacists) to refer to themselves”.
The ADL’s “hate symbols database” also includes “100%”, dozens of different numbers and number combinations, the Celtic cross, the phrase “it’s okay to be White”, various runes and the entire runic alphabet, the phrase “love your race”, the “okay” hand gesture, two cartoon frogs, the Rhodesian flag, and the phrase “White lives matter”.
THE JEWISH LOBBY ATTACK
The ECAJ submission, published publicly last week, was made in relation to the Committee’s ongoing review of the listing of the White Australia Party as a prohibited hate group, and we were mentioned in a section about alleged “hate crimes” committed by White Australia and the broader Australian right, which the ECAJ says shows the listing is justified.
The whole submission can be found here, but this is the relevant section (bold emphasis ours):
White Australia’s activity should also be understood against the wider pattern of far-right mobilisation in Australia. The ECAJ’s 2021 submission to this Committee described the evolution of Australian farright groups from loosely organised formations to more disciplined and explicitly neo-Nazi networks. It noted that antisemitism has been a constant of groups on the extreme right; and that online radicalisation allows individuals on the fringes of such groups to become more dangerous than formal membership lists might suggest. That analysis has been borne out by subsequent events. White Australia is not an aberration from that trend. It is one of its clearest contemporary manifestations.
The ECAJ is receiving an increasing volume of online hate and threats of physical violence from neoNazis who may be affiliated with White Australia, or with the ideology of the movement more broadly. We believe that the visibility of the NSN rallies, propaganda and online material has given neo-Nazis a boost generally in terms of normalising their activities. Publications such as The Noticer have helped amplify neo-Nazi ideologies, and the publication is popular with NSN followers. We note that the term “noticer” is a reference used by antisemites (primarily white supremacists) to refer to themselves. The Anti-Defamation League explains that the term is often used in the white supremacist context to “signify that the person using the term is “aware” that Jews are ostensibly behind major negative events (like terrorist attacks) or that Jews secretly control major elements of society (like banking or the media); it can also convey that the user pays attention to who is or who is not a Jew.”
Following a post on Facebook, Instagram and X by The Noticer, on 5 July 2026, which made wildly false allegations about the ECAJ’s involvement in the drafting of hate speech legislation, and which falsely implied that the ECAJ had received a cash windfall of government funding for its own use (with the imputation that there was something corrupt about the budget allocation), the ECAJ and its personnel faced a significant spike in online threats of violence.
The section above references an ABC News hit piece about us, and the ADL’s hate symbols database.
On Monday the co-CEO of the ECAJ, Alex Ryvchin, met with ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt (who famously clashed with X owner Elon Musk while attempting to force him to censor X in 2023 amid a viral #BantheADL campaign) in Bondi.
Hours later our account was banned.
We have no evidence that the ECAJ and/or the ADL had anything to do with the ban. We don’t know, and have no way of knowing or finding out, whether the Australian government was involved either.
It may just be a coincidence that our account was banned for a word disliked by the ADL on the same day its boss met with the ECAJ boss, who had just referenced the word and an X post and claimed it generated online hate. But in our opinion this seems extremely unlikely.
It seems more likely that the ECAJ and the ADL are sending a message – do negative stories about us and we will get you banned from social media.
THE ECAJ ACCUSATIONS
We were in the middle of responding to the ECAJ submission in an X thread when we were banned, so will include it here instead.
Here is our post, and the article itself. We encourage you to read the article, which is 100% factual.
Our post linked to the article and stated:
Australia’s most powerful Jewish group has demanded the government urgently bring in new hate speech laws to make “promoting hatred” a crime.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry helped draft the current laws, and just got $124M in taxpayer funding.
As seen above, ECAJ said the post made “wildly false allegations about the ECAJ’s involvement in the drafting of hate speech legislation, and which falsely implied that the ECAJ had received a cash windfall of government funding for its own use (with the imputation that there was something corrupt about the budget allocation)”.
We note that the ECAJ does not dispute the accuracy of the main point of the post and article, which is that the ECAJ is calling for even more “hate speech” laws. This, of course, is because it’s backed up by quotes from co-CEO Peter Wertheim.
We have not seen the so-called online hate that was allegedly sparked by the post, but we suspect that any such hate was directed at the ECAJ due to its relentless, years-long and ongoing attempts to restrict freedom of speech, not because we noted that it gets millions in taxpayer funding and helped design the latest laws.
Did the ECAJ help draft the current laws? Or is this a “wildly false allegation”?
According to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, her department, and email records obtained via Freedom of Information requests, the ECAJ was heavily involved in the consultation and draft process from an early stage, and was more involved than any other organisation.
This was not a secret.
Ms Rowland told a press conference while announcing one of the new “hate speech” laws that the government “will be consulting closely with the Jewish community and others on the structuring of this offence”.
Then, in response to complaints from Muslim groups that they were being not consulted, a spokesperson for Ms Rowland told The Sydney Morning Herald on January 12: “Consultation on the new laws is ongoing and has involved a range of experts and stakeholders, including the Jewish community.”
An article in The Australian from January 14 about the ECAJ saying the laws were too limited also stated that the Jewish group had “been closely involved in the design of the legislation”.
Since then, in response to questions from the PJCIS, the Attorney-General’s Department has confirmed that the ECAJ was consulted and briefed, both before and after receiving draft provisions, and before the Bill was made public:
Details of non-government consultations and briefings
• 29 December 2025: Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and Office of Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. Draft provisions were not provided.
• 8 January 2026: ECAJ and Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism and her Office. Draft provisions were provided.
• 8 January 2026: Law Council of Australia. Draft provisions were provided.
• 9 January 2026: Law Council of Australia. Draft provisions were provided.
• 9 January 2026: Australian Catholic Bishops Conference. Draft provisions were provided.
• 11 January 2026: Australian National Imams Council. Draft provisions were not provided.
• 13 January 2026: Jewish Council of Australia. The Bill was public.
• 13 January 2026: National Council of Churches and Anglican Church Diocese. The Bill was public.
• 13 January 2026: Equality Australia. The Bill was public.
Link to PDF download.
Emails obtained by FOI also confirm the above, and state that a document shared with non-government organisations was “developed as part of a deliberative process for the purposes of obtaining opinion, advice, and recommendations from a third-party to inform the department’s decision-making in relations to drafting legislation”.
The emails were heavily redacted by the Attorney-General’s Department under Section 47G(1)(a), which exempts disclosure that “would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect that person adversely in respect of his or her lawful business or professional affairs or that organisation or undertaking in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs”.
Other redactions were made under S47(G)(1)(b), which exempts disclosure that “could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth or an agency for the purpose of the administration of a law of the Commonwealth or a Territory or the administration of matters administered by an agency”.
Make of that what you will.
Page 25 shows a email sent from a Senior Advisor on December 24, about month before the laws were passed (and not listed by the Department in its response to the Committee above), putting Mr Wertheim in touch with an unnamed staffer who will be “lead contact during the drafting phase and will be in contact on logistics for the next steps”.
On December 28 an Assistant Chief of Staff (with “woman – she/her – why do pronouns matter?” in her email bio) set up a meeting with Mr Wertheim “to discuss the current drafting approach we are taking”.
On January 2 she responded to a long redacted response from Mr Wertheim by saying: “Thank you Peter. We will take these into consideration as the draft legislation progresses this week. As discussed, we would like to prove you with the opportunity to see a draft of the legislation next week and provide comments.”
On January 11 Mr Wertheim sent an email stating: “Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed legislation on Thursday. We have set out below the Executive Council of Australian Jewry’s position with respect to the draft laws.”
The contents of the email are redacted, and the bill was made public two days later.
Link to PDF download:
Did we falsely imply that the ECAJ had received a cash windfall of government funding for its own use (with the imputation that there was something corrupt about the budget allocation)?
Obviously not.
We simply wrote that the ECAJ “just got $124M in taxpayer funding”.
In the article we wrote that the ECAJ “received $124 million in taxpayer funding to provide ‘enhanced security for the Jewish community'”.
Both statements are factual, and there are no implications or imputations at all.
However, since the ECAJ has raised the issue, it is worth pointing out that questions have been raised in other outlets about the group’s government funding, including in a recent piece by MichaelWest Media.
In the May 23 article, the publication noted that the ECAJ “has received more than $176m in Commonwealth grant funding through an ACT incorporated association that is not subject to the same public financial reporting requirements as registered charities or companies”.
The $176 million figure includes government grants from 2023 and 2021 for security enhancements and ECAJ office upgrades.
“Among the hundreds of Zionist charities and not-for-profit organisations in Australia, ECAJ is the Israel lobby’s largest beneficiary of government grants in recent years. Yet the money trail remains a mystery,” the article states.
Evidently, the only false claims, implications and imputations here are from the ECAJ itself, which we also note did not provide a link to our post or article in its own wildly false allegations made to the PJCIS.
We are sure that the ECAJ did not intend to mislead the Committee, so we suggest it updates its submission and retracts the claims made about us, as they are demonstrably false.
What can you do to help?
Thank you to everyone who has messaged us and spoken out about the ban so far.
Please share this article and our other stories on X while we are going through the appeals process – feel free to take our posts from other platforms and repost them there word-for-word, and please follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Telegram, and subscribe to our daily emails (at the bottom of the homepage).
Losing our X account is a financial blow. Not only do we lose X revenue, but we lose advertising revenue from all the clicks that come from X.
If you can afford, please make a small recurring donation – if just a tiny fraction of our readers donated $5 or $10 a month we’d be financially secure and also be able to remove the ads.
You can donate here, or via crypto on our Support Us page.
Most importantly, the entire Australian right needs to unite and fight for free speech and against government and tech censorship – we need to act now to prevent police state multiculturalism from developing to such an extent that its impossible to reverse.
As our ban shows, not even Elon Musk’s “free speech platform” is safe, and we are not the only ones banned from X at the behest of powerful groups. Patriot Front and Mark Collett are totally barred, as are Thomas Sewell, Joel Davis, Blair Cottrell, and numerous other Australian nationalists.
If certain types of speech become illegal in Australia, the social media companies will ban you for it. But if they feel pressure from the other direction, like they currently do from the Trump administration, they will ease up on the censorship and over-moderation.
Without free speech, and without the ability to be part of the global conversation on social media, it’s going to be very difficult for right-wing parties to compete in elections in coming years and share our ideas with the Australian public.
We need freedom of speech enshrined in the Constitution, and we need to get rid of the eSafety Commissioner and stop the government from bringing in new methods of online censorship, such as its proposed Digital Duty of Care bill.
This is much bigger than our X account or The Noticer, it’s ultimately about whether any of us are allowed to express our political opinions – which most Australians actually agree with – or whether only left-wing, pro-multiculturalism, pro-mass immigration views will be allowed.
And if we are not allowed to express our views, we will get more mass immigration, and more multiculturalism, which in turn means more “hate speech” laws and tech censorship to protect minority groups from feeling offended.
Header image: Left, the ban notification. Right, Elon Musk in 2025 (Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link).
