Councillor Louise Elliot Faces Suspension Over Social Media Remarks: Is This Censorship or Accountability?
A Tasmanian councillor is crying foul, claiming she's being unfairly silenced and punished for her online comments about a colleague. This situation raises a crucial question: where do we draw the line between free speech and the professional conduct expected of our elected officials?
Councillor Louise Elliot of Hobart City Council found herself in hot water over a series of social media posts made between April and July of 2023. The core of the complaint, lodged by fellow councillor Ryan Posselt, involved remarks that the independent panel deemed to be harassing, offensive, and detrimental to the council's reputation. Among the contentious posts were references to Cr Posselt as "clown man" and implications that he "hates women." The collection also included a blurred image of genitalia.
But here's where it gets controversial... The "clown man" comment, according to Cr Elliot's submission, was a retort to Cr Posselt's own past remark likening the council to a circus. Furthermore, the "Hobart hates women" post was made in the wake of the council rejecting Cr Elliot's motion to exclude transgender individuals from council-owned bathrooms. The panel heard that another post, commenting on Cr Posselt's body language, allegedly led to threats against him and his family.
An independent panel, after investigating the matter, determined in October 2024 that Cr Elliot had indeed breached the council's code of conduct. They found her actions constituted harassment and offense towards Cr Posselt, and undermined the council's decision-making processes. And this is the part most people miss... Cr Elliot did not attend the hearing, citing concerns for her safety and mental health, despite being offered the option to have a support person present or appear electronically.
Following the panel's decision, Cr Elliot sought a review of the determination in the Magistrates Court. However, in December 2025, the court upheld the panel's findings. This led to a seven-day suspension for Cr Elliot, along with an order to undergo training on distinguishing her role as an elected member from that of a private citizen on social media.
Councillor Elliot's Stance: A Broken System or Justified Sanctions?
Cr Elliot has been vocal in her criticism, arguing that the code of conduct framework grants panels too much power to censor political discourse. She feels she's being held to an unreasonably high standard, especially when compared to state and federal politicians. "The code of conduct framework and especially the way the panels are interpreting and applying the code is fundamentally broken," she stated. She believes she's being subjected to "highly subjective offence and embarrassment terms" with a "ridiculously low" threshold, leading to her being "censored and unfairly punished."
When discussing her posts, Cr Elliot acknowledged the need for greater consciousness of individual sensitivities, noting that "Everyone has their own threshold in terms of their own resilience." She characterized Cr Posselt as being on the "more hyper-sensitive and fragile end."
Conversely, Cr Posselt maintained that his complaint was based purely on objective breaches of the code of conduct, stating, "It had nothing to do with my fragility and everything to do with the rules under which we are meant to operate as councillors." He emphasized that councillors cannot "go around in your organisation harassing people or sledging the organisation you work for as an employee." He views the upheld decision as a "win for democracy and a win for representation."
Cr Elliot is reportedly consulting with lawyers to explore potential action in the Federal Court, aiming to raise the bar for terms like "offence and embarrassment" used by code of conduct panels.
What do you think? Is Cr Elliot a victim of an overreaching code of conduct, or were her actions genuinely inappropriate for a public official? Share your thoughts in the comments below – we'd love to hear your perspective!
