eSafeKids Named, Shamed & Defamed by the Mad *** Witches
Updated: Jul 28
Recently, eSafeKids was incorrectly identified online as being associated with advertising on a radio program. As a result, my business name, logo and contact details were publicly shared and my social enterprise became the subject of online discussion before anyone had contacted me to verify the facts.
I want to reassure my community that these allegations were entirely false!
Before publishing information about a person or business, there should be reasonable efforts to verify that the information is accurate. Assumptions, speculation and "it might be" are not enough when someone's reputation is at stake.
Once information is published online, it spreads quickly. People comment, share, make assumptions and repeat to others what they've read, believing it to be true.
Even when incorrect information is later removed, the impact doesn't simply disappear. Reputations can be damaged, professional relationships affected and countless hours spent correcting a narrative that should never have existed.
The digital world gives every one of us the ability to publish instantly. With that privilege comes responsibility. Before naming and shaming an individual or organisation publicly, ask:
Have I verified this?
Have I contacted the person concerned?
Am I relying on evidence or an assumption?
Could this unfairly harm someone's reputation if I'm wrong?
These are not difficult questions, but they are important ones. In a world where misinformation can spread in seconds, choosing to verify before we amplify has never been more important.
So what actually happened to eSafeKids ...
On Saturday 9 August 2025 it was brought to my attention that a Facebook page and website, MFW - Mad Fucking Witches (MFW) had alleged that my social enterprise eSafeKids, paid for advertisements during the Kyle and Jackie-O Hour of Power. Specifically, MFW alleged that I advertised on the Kyle and Jackie-O Show on 4 August 2025 at 6:23 pm.
To be clear these imputations were entirely false and without justification. These accusations are particularly concerning given the work of eSafeKids.
Summary of Issues
MFW posts alleged that eSafeKids had aired advertisements related to the Kyle and Jackie O Show, despite having no evidence to support this claim.
MFW publications included my business name, logo, website and email address, publicly linking my business to inappropriate content.
A MFW follower further compounded this by tagging eSafeKids, a government organisation and industry professional on public social media, without conducting any due diligence.
Despite being informed by me that these claims were false, MFW did not remove the posts until a Cease and Desist notice was sent.
MFW threatened to mobilise 200,000 followers against eSafeKids.
Corrective Actions Requested
To mitigate ongoing harm and prevent further escalation, I request the following:
Immediate Removal Permanently remove all posts, references, or content linking eSafeKids to the allegations in question from all platforms, including Facebook and your website.
Public Apology and Correction Publish a full, unequivocal public apology acknowledging that:
The prior statements were false and unsubstantiated.
eSafeKids has never engaged in any advertising related to the broadcast or campaign in question.
eSafeKids is not complicit in, nor profiting from, any such campaign.
Assurance Against Future Publication Provide written confirmation that no further posts or communications making false or defamatory statements about eSafeKids will be made. These actions must be completed no later than Tuesday 19 August 2025.
This was my exchange with Lou, Senior Administrator at Mad Fucking Witches
Lou MFW
“An advertisement for what was thought to be your company was heard on the Kyle and Jackie show on their Perth ‘Hour of Power’ last week, and was therefore published in our weekly round-up of new advertisers.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
At the time of publishing, you only “thought” my business was the advertiser in question. This demonstrates that you did not take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of your claims before publication. When publishing content that can affect an individual or business’s reputation, you have an obligation to ensure your statements are true, accurate and not misleading.
No due diligence was undertaken before you publicly named my business and made allegations that could reasonably be interpreted as critical or damaging. This was done on a Facebook page with over 90,000 followers.
In addition to naming my business, you:
Used my business’s registered logo without authorisation;
Published my website URL and business email address on your own website;
Directed your Facebook followers to your website, where this information was displayed.
Your conduct has caused reputational harm. The publication of false and unverified statements, combined with the unauthorised use of my intellectual property, is unacceptable
I reiterate before publishing any content that could damage an individual or business’s reputation, it is your responsibility to verify the facts and be certain the business has engaged in the conduct alleged.
Lou MFW
“While it’s possible this wasn’t your company and we apologise if so, it’s also possible it WAS your company if you’ve ever had any advertisements (either paid or unpaid) heard on any radio station over the past five or six years.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
“While it’s possible this wasn’t your company …”
Firstly, I must emphasise the critical importance of conducting due diligence before publishing statements that may damage the reputation of a business or individual. Your suggestion that it was “possible” my business was involved, despite no evidence is entirely unfounded.
“… it’s also possible it WAS your company …”
I can categorically confirm that my business has never engaged in any paid or unpaid advertising, including radio advertising, at any time. I also informed your follower of this fact in my reply to their email, however, this was disregarded.
The appropriate and professional course of action would have been for a representative of your organisation to contact me directly before publishing any material. This would have allowed you to outline your concerns and provide me an opportunity to respond, rather than publicly naming, shaming and defaming an innocent business.
I can now confirm, and I now have evidence, that it was not my company. I have received confirmation from ARN that the advertisement in question was unrelated to child safety or any services provided by eSafeKids. Furthermore, at no point does the advertisement reference “eSafeKids”, it only mentions “eSafe” The content of the advertisement could in no way reasonably be understood to refer to my organisation. Your follower’s original handwritten note, posted publicly online, correctly identified “eSafe,” not “eSafeKids” Your subsequent online posts incorrectly included “eSafeKids”, an error entirely attributable to your organisation.
Lou MFW
“This is because ARN Media (who own the radio station in Perth where an ad for a company sounding like yours was played) are now sticking ads in for any corporation they can find - even ones who haven’t advertised for some years; who don’t want their ads heard; who haven’t advertised on that station; and/or who aren’t paying for the ads. The success of our campaign means they literally don’t have enough ads to play and are sourcing (stealing) them from anywhere, and in most cases not even telling the companies involved they’ve been played.”
“This sounds unbelievable, but it’s true.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
“… an ad for a company sounding like yours was played …”
An ad for a company sounding like mine? Again, I emphasise that before publishing content that could damage an individual’s or business’s reputation, you must verify the accuracy of your statements. Publishing speculation is unacceptable.
“… and in most cases not even telling the companies involved they’ve been played.”
This statement acknowledges that the companies involved may not even be aware their advertisements are being used in the manner you describe. If that is indeed the case, the appropriate, professional and legally responsible course of action would have been to contact the affected companies directly by email or other formal communication before publicly naming or shaming them online.
Lou MFW
“This means we wouldn’t know if the ad was for your company or not unless you’re sure you’ve never had any radio advertising anywhere ever, and you listen to the audio transcript of the broadcast.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
In this statement, you admit that you were not certain the advertisement related to my business. Despite this uncertainty, you nonetheless chose to publicly post and link my business to the Kyle and Jackie O Show and your VILEKYLE campaign. This reckless action exposed my business to public defamation without any verification.
Lou MFW
“You say you’ve applied for this audio from that date and time, and we do appreciate your pro-active action on this.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
I applied for the audio recording precisely because my business was publicly named and shamed as part of your campaign. Notably, despite informing you of this misidentification, the defamatory content remained online until the Cease and Desist notice was issued.
Lou MFW
“However, it also seems to us that essentially, we should both be on the same side here. We run campaigns against verbally violent and misogynist, racist and homophobic broadcasting and your company seems as though it also cares a lot about those issues, especially where they apply to children. You may not know Kyle’s biggest listener base is young men and boys aged between 10 and 17 years, who are absorbing the most disgusting content every day: the kind of content the courses you run would be seeking to counteract or get rid of.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
If, as you claim, we are “on the same side” it is unclear why you chose to publicly name and shame my business, and link it to the VILEKYLE campaign. This action is particularly concerning given your acknowledgement of the nature of my work. Had you conducted proper due diligence and approached this matter collegially, the publication of these defamatory statements could have been entirely avoided. Such a public misrepresentation should never have occurred.
Even primary school children are taught to pause before posting online and consider: is it true (it was not), helpful (it was not), inspiring (it was not), necessary (it was not) and kind (it was not). Your posts fail each of these fundamental standards, yet were directed at my business, causing reputational harm.
Lou MFW
“This is why we’re somewhat alarmed and confused by your threatening and essentially abusive reply to us: we are fighting the same fight, or are meant to be …”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
It is unclear how you can claim to be “alarmed” when your organisation publicly posted content about my business without conducting any due diligence. As a result of your publication, my business was contacted via email, my Facebook account was tagged, and the post that defamed my business was viewed, liked and shared by multiple users.
I am not issuing threats; I am asserting my rights and taking necessary steps to protect my business and reputation. Your actions demonstrate a disregard for the impact on my business, as you chose to post unverified statements online. Posting and then offering a belated apology after reputational harm has occurred is wholly unacceptable.
If, as you claim, we are “fighting the same fight” why did you not contact me prior to publicly naming and shaming my business and linking it to the VILEKYLE campaign? Given the nature of my work, this misrepresentation is particularly damaging to my business and professional reputation.
Lou MFW
“If you’d looked through our material and understood what we’re about instead of immediately sending off your attacking response, you would have seen that.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
I am expected to review your material, yet you failed to review mine before publishing defamatory content about my business online.
Lou MFW
“We do understand it doesn’t feel great to be contacted by our followers no matter how polite they are, but that’s because Kyle’s content is so horrific it feels awful to be confronted with what he says on air every day. However, that’s because HE and his employers are horrible, not because we are.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
The fact that it may feel unpleasant to be contacted does not justify your organisation publicly naming and shaming my business. My business should never have been included in that Facebook post or listed on your website.
When one of your followers emailed me, I clearly stated that the imputations were false and without justification. Rather than acknowledging this error, her response was: “I can confirm that an eSafe ad was heard and logged …”
I request that you provide the evidence upon which this confirmation was based; to my knowledge, no such evidence exists.
While Kyle Sandilands’ content may be objectionable, that does not excuse your organisation for naming, shaming and defaming my business. Any harm to my reputation in this matter was caused entirely by your organisation, not by him.
Your follower also instructed me to obtain a copy of the audio recording. I advised that I had already requested it and sought legal advice, as the defamatory material had been online for more than 20 hours by that point.
Further, your follower’s response attempted to place the onus on me to prove that my business was not involved, rather than requiring your organisation to substantiate its claims. This is inconsistent with the burden of proof principles under Australian law.
Lou MFW
“If you’d responded to simply say you didn’t think it was you but you’d make sure of that and then make sure the ad wasn’t played again, you would have received a lot of praise and kudos from our followers, and the matter would have been over.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
The burden of proof is not, and should never have been, placed on me to convince you or your followers that my business was not responsible for the advertisement in question. My email response to your follower clearly asserted that the allegations were false and this response was disregarded.
To protect my business and reputation from further unjust harm, I had no option but to issue a Cease and Desist notice. My concern was not “receiving praise” from your followers, it was preventing further reputational damage. The defamatory post remained online for approximately 20 hours before it was brought to my attention, during which time it was viewed, liked and shared. My business was tagged, as was a government organisation with which I am professionally associated. Such public misrepresentation has caused unnecessary harm to my reputation.
Lou MFW
“However, your actions in saying we’ve defamed you when we haven’t; in complaining about us to ARN Media when THEY are the bad guys here; in demanding compensation from us (for what?); and in threatening at least one of our followers with a complaint to her employer is thoroughly OTT.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
To clarify, I have not lodged any complaint against your organisation with ARN. My sole action has been to request a copy of the relevant recording and provide the reasons for doing so, advice suggested by your own follower as a way to demonstrate that my business was not involved.
It is also important to note the actions of your follower:
· Tagged my business on a public Facebook post.
· Tagged a government organisation with which I am professionally associated.
· Tagged another professional in my industry.
· Did so using a profile that clearly identified her employer.
These actions were taken without any due diligence, publicly and irresponsibly and are entirely separate from any action on my part.
Given my contractual obligations, I am required to inform the government organisation about this public misrepresentation. Unlike your follower, I did not tag her employer online.
To mitigate ongoing reputational harm, I will be issuing a public statement clarifying that eSafeKids has no connection to the Kyle and Jackie O Show or the alleged campaign conducted by MFW. This action is necessary not only to protect my business and professional standing, but also because the defamatory content was posted on the same day I was publicly photographed with the Commonwealth Attorney General in Queensland, further amplifying the potential for reputational damage.
Lou MFW
“You should stop doing those things, because if you persist we may be forced to let our 200,000 followers know what you’re doing here, and if we do that it will have negative consequences you’d prefer not to go through.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
This statement constitutes a threat. I am not attacking your organisation, I am taking necessary steps to hold you accountable for the publication of false and defamatory statements about my business. You made a serious error, one that publicly named, shamed and defamed my business and professional reputation. Your apparent disregard for the impact of your actions on my business is deeply concerning. Where is the same concern for my business and reputation that you claim to hold for others?
Lou MFW
“Our followers would be highly alarmed at seeing communications from a company which says it’s about anti-bullying and caring for children, yet then attacking us in the quite astounding way you have.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
Rather than acknowledging your error, you are threatening to mobilise 200,000 followers in a manner that could cause further reputational damage to my business, which is dedicated to child safety.
I am not engaging in bullying, I am defending my business against false and damaging statements published online by MFW. Threatening to direct a large audience against my business constitutes intimidation and could reasonably be perceived as bullying.
Given the statements you have published, there is a real risk that your followers could mistakenly believe that my business is associated with “Kyle Sandilands filth” or that we are “complicit in the filth as they're either taking advantage of the campaign for their own profit, or they're not trying hard enough to get ads off permanently”
These false implications are defamatory and harmful to my professional and public reputation.
Lou MFW
“We took down your listing from our posts and our website within 24 hours of them being posted and will leave them down while this matter is cleared up. If no other ads are played, that end result will persist. However, if it was an ad for your company which was played and it is played again, we’ll have no choice but to list your company again as an advertiser. That’s what we do: we politely ask companies not to fund Kyle Sandilands’ filth.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
The listing was only removed after I issued a Cease and Desist notice. It should never have been published in the first place.
“…will leave them down while this matter is cleared up. If no other ads are played, that end result will persist…”
This “end result” must indeed persist, or you will be repeating the defamatory publication against my business.
Furthermore, the original publication did not reflect a polite request. Your statements, including:
“Of course, all these companies are complicit in the filth as they're either taking advantage of the campaign for their own profit, or they're not trying hard enough to get ads off permanently. Boycott hard, and tell them why,”
This wrongly implied my business was complicit or profiting from the alleged campaign. I categorically deny these allegations, my business has not engaged in any of the conduct alleged, and I have not taken any profit from the matter described.
Lou MFW
“22 new bunnies this week, so slightly up on the 16 last week but still way down on almost 50 of a few weeks ago. Here they are, and as always nearly all will flee if enough witches get in touch.”
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids
This statement constitutes incitement.
Your actions have targeted a small Australian social enterprise that focuses on child abuse prevention. I did not “flee”, I stood up to defend my business and professional reputation. The content of your email and prior publications suggests a failure to acknowledge that your conduct was not only improper but may constitute unlawful defamation under Australian law.
Kayelene Kerr eSafeKids Request for Public Apology
In light of the defamatory material published by your organisation regarding my business, eSafeKids, I hereby request a full and unequivocal public apology. The apology should:
Acknowledge that your prior statements linking eSafeKids to the Kyle and Jackie O Show, the VILEKYLE campaign and associated alleged advertisements were false and unsubstantiated.
Confirm that eSafeKids has never engaged in any advertising related to the broadcast in question.
Withdraw any implication that eSafeKids is complicit in, or profiting from, the alleged campaign or any inappropriate conduct associated with it.
Be published on the MFW Facebook page and website.
I request that you provide the requested public apology, written confirmation of removal of all defamatory material and assurance that no further publications will be made by Tuesday 19 August 2025.
Update:
On 12 August 2025 ARN Media confirmed eSafeKids did not advertise
As at July 2026 MFW has not respond or provide an apology.
About Kayelene Kerr & eSafeKids
eSafeKids is a social enterprise founded by Kayelene Kerr. Kayelene is recognised as one of Australia’s most experienced specialist providers of Protective Behaviours, Body Safety, Cyber Safety, Digital Wellness and Pornography Literacy education workshops. Kayelene has featured on Australian and international television broadcasts, radio programs and in print media.
eSafeKids is Australia's one-stop-shop for child safety books and resources that support education, meaningful conversation and curriculum delivery. With over 60 books available, you're sure to find the perfect resource to support you.
eSafeKids books can support educators teaching protective behaviours, body safety and child abuse prevention education that aligns with the Western Australian Curriculum, Australian Curriculum, Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) and National Quality Framework: National Quality Standards (NQS).
