Australian Court Considers Social Media Limits in Gruesome Video Case

A legal battle is unfolding in Australia concerning the removal of graphic content from social media platforms. The case centers around a video depicting the stabbing of an Assyrian Christian bishop during a sermon in Sydney, deemed a terrorist attack by authorities.

The Australian government, through lawyer Tim Begbie, is arguing that Elon Musk’s social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), should be compelled to remove 65 posts containing the video. X has challenged this order issued by the eSafety Commissioner, a national regulatory body.

Begbie contends that X enforces its own policies regarding the removal of harmful content but shouldn’t be able to override Australian law when it comes to regulating online content accessible within the country. He highlights the swift removal of the video by other platforms like Meta (Facebook’s parent company) upon request.

The crux of the dispute lies in X’s opposition to global content removal. X argues that a single country’s regulations shouldn’t dictate online content moderation practices worldwide. This stance, according to Begbie, undermines the “reasonable” application of Australia’s Online Safety Act, which empowers authorities to protect citizens from highly offensive content.

Begbie further criticizes X’s proposed solution of geo-blocking Australian users. He argues that this approach is ineffective due to the widespread use of virtual private networks (VPNs) that allow users to mask their location. He concludes that global removal, in this specific instance, represents a “reasonable step” to achieve the intended outcome of the Online Safety Act – ensuring the video is inaccessible to Australian users.

X’s lawyer, Bret Walker, counters that Australian laws leave room for interpretation regarding the definition of “reasonable steps” for protecting citizens from offensive content. He defends X’s actions as a sufficient response within the bounds of these laws.

Walker raises concerns about a potential chilling effect on free speech. He argues that X’s approach allows the video to remain accessible globally, enabling informed public discussion and diverse perspectives. He expresses worry that prioritizing local control might lead to content suppression on an international scale.

The court, presided over by Federal Court Judge Geoffrey Kennett, has already issued a temporary takedown order for the posts. This order has been extended until June 10th, when Judge Kennett will deliver a final verdict on the case.

This legal battle has significant implications for the regulation of online content on social media platforms. The outcome will determine the balance between national control over harmful content and the global accessibility of information.