A ban on X allowing videos of the stabbing of a Sydney bishop in his church last month has been extended by an Australian judge. The ban was extended after government lawyers criticized X’s free speech argument for keeping the graphic images circulating. The attack, which occurred on April 15, led to terrorism-related charges for the alleged attacker, a teenager, and sparked a riot outside the church. Since April 22, X Corp. has been under an order to block users from sharing videos of the attack, and the court will decide on Monday whether this ban will continue.
X, the company rebranded by Elon Musk when he bought Twitter last year, has geoblocked Australian users from the content, but the eSafety Commission argues that the video can still be accessed from Australia through Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). The regulator is pushing for a worldwide ban on the video and has described X as a “market leader in proliferating and distributing violent content and violent and extremist material.” X’s lawyer, Tim Begbie, argued in court that Australia cannot be expected to conform to X’s pro-free speech stance, as X’s policies mention circumstances where the platform will remove content globally. The eSafety Commission believes that X should comply with Australian laws regarding the removal of specific content.
Musk has accused Australia of censorship and has applied to the Federal Court to overturn the eSafety notice. The court will convene on Wednesday to determine a hearing date for X’s application. X’s lawyer, Bret Walker, stated that X had taken reasonable steps to block the content from Australia but admitted there had been glitches. Walker criticized eSafety’s demand for a global ban, calling it astonishing and deeming the notice as invalid. He argued against the idea of Australian laws regulating content globally, stating that it would lead to extreme isolationism.
The eSafety Commission alleges that X is a major distributor of violent and extremist material and has argued for a global ban on the video of the church stabbing incident. The Commission’s lawyer described X’s pro-free speech stance as illusory, arguing that X only stands for global removal when it aligns with the company’s interests. X’s lawyer countered by highlighting the challenges of implementing a global ban and emphasized the need to respect the sovereignty of nations in regulating online content. The case highlights the ongoing debate between tech companies and regulatory bodies regarding the moderation of harmful content online and the balance between free speech and public safety.
Going forward, the decision on whether to extend the ban on X from circulating videos of the church stabbing will be determined by Australian Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett. The court will further deliberate on whether the ban should continue in its current form or if modifications need to be made. The outcome of this legal battle could have broader implications for how social media platforms operate in Australia and potentially influence global discussions on content regulation and free speech on the internet.
