The decision by the Federal Court not to extend the temporary order telling X to hide videos of the Sydney church stabbing is disappointing to say the least.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
It will be seized upon by Musk, the "cooker" fraternity, anarchic free speech advocates and conspiracy theorists as proof of government overreach and a vindication of their contempt for the mores of a civilised nation.
But if the laws held social media platforms such as X to the same standard as other "publishers", including ACM, Nine, 7, the ABC, SBS and News the video wouldn't even be an issue. While some of the above did post the footage showing Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being stabbed, when they were asked to take it down they did.
X and Facebook however refused to comply, prompting the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to issue takedown notices against both platforms on the grounds the footage met the criteria for "class 1" material. That covers depictions of violent crime, child sex offences, or other "revolting or abhorrent phenomena [that] offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults".
While Facebook eventually did block the footage, Elon Musk refused, drawing a line in the sand in the name of "free speech" that suggests he is neither reasonable nor an adult.
![In another life the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant actually worked for Twitter (now X). Picture by Jamila Toderas In another life the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant actually worked for Twitter (now X). Picture by Jamila Toderas](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/LLBstgPA4H8EG9DTTGcXBL/0d103288-2a64-4a40-a0cb-6cb4eca08209.jpg/r0_218_4256_2611_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Since his disastrous takeover of Twitter (now X) Mr Musk has allowed the platform to degenerate into an uglier public space where anonymous trolls try to outdo each other with hate speech, ad hominem attacks and lies. It is no longer a nice nor healthy place to be.
The question that should be put to Mr Musk, who is going in to bat for his right to disseminate what almost amounts to a "snuff video", is just what wouldn't he accept? Is AI generated child porn acceptable? Live feeds filmed by perpetrators of terrorist acts such as Hamas on October 7 or the Christchurch massacre?
The eSafety Commissioner is the sheriff in the social media wild west. Since experience has shown tech companies won't regulate themselves, refuse to respond to complaints and ignore attempts by individuals such as Twiggy Forrest to stop them sharing fake imagery for fraudulent purposes the government has had to step in.
Australia is not the only country trying to set boundaries to protect its citizens from exploitation, misinformation and abuse. The problem is a global one.
While the court, which was due to revisit the issue for a case management hearing on Wednesday, has yet to reveal its reasons for not extending the temporary injunction - which X had not complied with - an exchange in the court last Friday was telling.
Extensive debate took place over what impact X's refusal to comply with the court's authority was having and whether or not continuing the order would make an even greater mockery of the limits to its power.
Tim Begby, the counsel for the eSafety Commissioner, said if X's continued intransigence influenced a decision to let the order lapse then "what that says about the authority of the [Federal] court is pretty striking".
That's a fair call given that on the same day X's lawyer Brett Walker said the platform had refused to comply with the takedown order because it was "not valid". But says who? The order was issued under the Online Safety Act which has now been the law of the land since 2021. It is just as valid as any other piece of legislation passed by Parliament.
The real issue here is not freedom of speech or civil liberties. Mr Musk has demonstrated many times he cares little for the rights or freedoms of others; just ask any ex-Twitter employee.
This is all about the hubris of an individual who believes our laws do not apply to him.
Send us a letter to the editor
- Letters to the editor should be kept to 250 or fewer words. To the Point letters should not exceed 50 words. Reference to The Canberra Times reports should include a date and page number. Provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published). Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.