Elon Musk has found himself in a contentious battle with Australian authorities regarding demands to remove violent content depicting a stabbing incident that occurred during a live church service in Sydney. Musk fervently argues that such decisions could empower nations to exert control over the entirety of the internet, a notion that the Australian government refutes, asserting that geoblocking content falls short in addressing concerns of decency and social responsibility.
Musk maintains that the objectionable content has already been geoblocked within Australia and exists solely on servers located in the United States. He questions, “Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian ‘eSafety Commissar’ is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?”
On the other hand, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasizes the accountability of social media companies in removing violent content from their platforms. He stresses that these companies, which generate substantial revenue from their operations, have a moral obligation to protect users from harmful content.
The dispute escalated when the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, invoked the Online Safety Act, which authorizes her to demand the removal of materials that promote or depict heinous acts of violence, such as kidnapping, rape, torture, murder, and terrorism, if they possess the potential to “go viral and cause significant harm to the Australian community.”
On April 16th, Meta and X were instructed to globally remove videos and images of the stabbing within 24 hours or face substantial fines. X complied with the order while expressing its intention to legally challenge the global takedown, arguing that it violates fundamental principles of freedom of expression and poses a threat to free speech globally.
The Federal Court of Australia subsequently imposed an injunction on X, compelling the platform to temporarily conceal the violent content from global users until the legitimacy of the removal notice issued by Inman Grant can be adjudicated.
Prime Minister Albanese has taken a firm stance, stating, “We’ll do what’s necessary to take on this arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law, but also above common decency.” He decried Musk’s decision to pursue legal action to defend his right to display violent content, emphasizing the need for social media platforms to exercise social responsibility.
Musk has repeatedly criticized X in response to the ruling, accusing the Australian prime minister and eSafety commissioner of suppressing global free speech. He has questioned the authority of the eSafety Commissioner, an unelected official, to impose regulations on countries worldwide.
Earlier this month, Musk had a similar confrontation with Brazil over his alleged defiance of orders to block certain X user accounts due to potential obstruction of justice. In response to a letter from his lawyers, Musk stated that X Corp. would continue to “fully comply” with all orders issued by the Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court.
