In the pre-internet era, discussing religion or politics was often considered impolite outside close family or friends. But in 2025, social media platforms have transformed into public forums where individuals freely voice opinions on contentious issues, from abortion to public health policies.
For most, these online expressions are seen as separate from professional life. However, the case of Dr. Jereth Kok, an Australian general practitioner, challenges this assumption, raising urgent questions about free speech, thought policing, and the extent to which personal beliefs can cost someone their career.
Dr. Jereth Kok, a Christian GP from Melbourne, has been suspended from medical practice since 2019 under emergency powers by the Medical Board of Australia. Two weeks ago, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) upheld his suspension, finding him guilty of professional misconduct over 54 social media posts made over a 12-year period.
These posts, which expressed his views on abortion, gender ideology, and COVID-19 policies, were deemed “disrespectful,” “derogatory,” and insufficiently balanced by the tribunal, despite having no connection to his clinical practice or patient care.
This ruling, which effectively ends Dr. Kok’s medical career, has ignited a broader conversation about whether professionals in Australia can express personal beliefs without fear of professional ruin.
The posts and the punishment
Dr. Kok’s posts, made on personal social media accounts, reflected his Christian faith and conservative views. They covered topics that are deeply divisive: abortion, which he equated to murder and described practitioners as “butchers”; gender ideology, including a post suggesting transgender identity is a mental health issue; and COVID-19 policies, where he questioned vaccine development processes and lockdown measures.
Notably, some posts were satirical, including a shared article from The Babylon Bee, a U.S.-based comedy platform, which mocked the use of gender pronouns. VCAT labeled this post “denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful, and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons,” citing a lack of respect for “gender diversity.”
Another post, an article Dr. Kok wrote addressing transgender ideology from a Christian perspective, received similar criticism.
The tribunal cleared Dr. Kok of misconduct for 31 of the 85 posts reviewed, acknowledging that many were political or religious in nature or did not carry the alleged meanings. However, the 54 posts deemed problematic were enough to uphold his suspension. The Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA), representing Dr. Kok, argues that this decision represents a “concerning expansion of regulatory power” into personal belief and expression, with no evidence that Dr. Kok’s views affected his ability to treat patients competently.
Free speech under fire
Dr. Kok’s case is not just about one doctor’s career, it’s about the broader implications for free speech in Australia.
The HRLA emphasised that his posts were made in a private capacity, outside of work, and were often limited in visibility, such as being shared with “friends of friends” on Facebook. Yet, the Medical Board of Australia and VCAT asserted their authority to discipline him for these expressions, citing breaches of the Medical Board’s Code of Conduct.
This raises a critical question: should a professional’s personal beliefs, expressed outside their workplace, be grounds for losing their livelihood?
Australia has long prided itself on being a democratic society that values freedom of expression, as underscored by legal precedents like Attorney-General (SA) v Adelaide City Corporation (2013), which links free speech to the health of representative democracies.
Dr. Kok’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is also protected under section 14 of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Yet, VCAT gave little weight to these protections, prioritising perceived “disrespect” over constitutional and common law principles.
The inclusion of a satirical Babylon Bee post as evidence of misconduct is particularly striking. Satire, by its nature, is meant to provoke thought and critique societal trends, often through humor.
Labeling such content as derogatory suggests a narrow interpretation of acceptable speech, one that could stifle creative expression and humor. If sharing a comedic article can cost a doctor their career, what does this mean for other professionals who engage with controversial or satirical content online?
A polarised world
Dr. Kok’s views on abortion, sexuality, and COVID-19 policies are rooted in his Christian faith and shared by many devout followers of various religions. These perspectives – opposition to abortion, skepticism about gender-affirming treatments, and concerns about vaccine mandates – are not unique to him.
Surveys and studies, such as those from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, indicate that a significant portion of Australians hold conservative views on issues like abortion and traditional family structures, but they are less vocal due to social pressures. Globally, similar sentiments are common, particularly among religious communities.
The problem lies not in the existence of these views but in their suppression. Dr. Kok’s posts were deemed “unacceptable” by VCAT, yet had he expressed pro-vaccine, pro-abortion, or pro-LGBTQI+ views, as many people do and should be able to do – he would not have faced any scrutiny at all.
This double standard suggests a form of thought policing, where only certain perspectives are deemed permissible. Lyle Shelton of the Family First Party called this ruling “un-Australian,” arguing that it enforces “ideological conformity” and crushes dissent.
Many Australians, particularly those in regulated professions, may now hesitate to share their beliefs publicly, fearing professional repercussions.
The role of AHPRA and regulatory overreach
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which oversees the Medical Board, has faced criticism for its handling of cases like Dr. Kok’s. A 2024 report highlighted that only 35% of medical practitioners view AHPRA positively, with concerns about lengthy investigations and lack of transparency.
Dr. Kok’s six-year suspension under emergency powers, without any patient complaints or evidence of clinical harm, exemplifies this overreach. The fact that some of his posts predate AHPRA’s 2014 social media policy further questions the fairness of retroactively applying guidelines to past behavior.
AHPRA’s broad interpretation of its regulatory scope allows it to discipline practitioners for personal speech, even when it has no bearing on their professional competence.
This approach risks creating a culture where professionals self-censor to avoid career-ending consequences. How many doctors, nurses, or teachers hold similar views to Dr. Kok but remain silent out of fear? And how does this silence benefit society, when open debate is essential for progress and cornerstone of democracy?
Online activity in aged care
The risks of expressing controversial views online are particularly relevant for nurses and other aged care staff, who operate in a sector where public health policies can spark intense debate. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant number of aged care staff opposed vaccine mandates.
While the vast majority complied, with 99.8% of residential aged care workers receiving at least one dose by October 2021, some did so reluctantly, and a small number left the profession to avoid vaccination altogether. Since the pandemic, vaccine hesitancy has risen across Australia.
A 2025 report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare noted that only 40% of Australians aged 75 and older in residential aged care had received a COVID-19 booster in the past six months, reflecting broader hesitancy trends that may extend to staff.
Nurses in aged care, regulated by AHPRA, face similar scrutiny to doctors when it comes to online activity. AHPRA’s social media guidelines warn that public statements, even on personal accounts, can reflect on a nurse’s professional conduct.
Sharing views that challenge public health directives, such as vaccine mandates, could lead to complaints or disciplinary action, especially if deemed to undermine public confidence in healthcare. Nurses should exercise caution, ensuring their posts do not breach AHPRA’s code of conduct, which prioritises public safety and professional standards.
In contrast, carers in aged care, such as personal care assistants, are not regulated by AHPRA and face less formal oversight. While this allows greater freedom to express personal views online, it also means they may lack the structured guidance AHPRA provides to registered professionals.
Carers should still be mindful, as employers or industry bodies can impose their own policies, and public backlash could affect their employment. If another pandemic or contentious issue arises, aged care staff may hold views opposing government consensus, as seen during COVID-19.
Before sharing such opinions online, they should consider the potential professional and social consequences, including scrutiny from employers, colleagues, or the public
Should personal views end a career?
At the heart of this case is a simple question: should Dr. Kok’s personal beliefs disqualify him from practicing medicine?
There is no evidence that his views impacted his patient care. His suspension was based solely on his online activity, not his professional conduct. This precedent suggests that any professional in a regulated industry – doctors, lawyers, teachers – could face similar consequences for expressing unpopular opinions, even in private forums.
If a doctor’s private social media posts, spanning over a decade, can end their career, what message does this send to others? The HRLA is considering an appeal, and the outcome could set a precedent for how far regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal lives.
As Australians, we must ask ourselves: do we value a society where diverse opinions, even those we find offensive, can be expressed without fear of professional ruin? Or are we content with a system that reprimands those who step outside the bounds of “acceptable” thought?
