Australia is currently in a high-stakes battle for free speech. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant is embroiled in a battle with X boss Elon Musk over internet freedom. Incredibly, Inman Grant wants the power to control the Internet, not just in Australia, but across the world.
The controversy was sparked by a violent knife attack on an Assyrian Christian bishop in a Sydney church last month. The attack occurred during a live streaming service, and as a result, the footage quickly spread online and went viral. Inman Grant almost immediately demanded that social media companies remove the video due to its graphic content. Under Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021, the eSafety Commissioner has the right to demand the removal of any material depicting “disgusting or abhorrent phenomena that violate standards of morality, decency or civility.”
Of course, it is highly debatable whether protecting public sensibilities is more important than the right to information. Even the bishop at the center of the attack says he doesn’t want the footage to be censored.
Some commentators have noted that the decision to start such a fuss over this video in particular seems suspiciously political. There were concerns that the footage could heighten tensions in the community, as the alleged perpetrator is Muslim and the incident is being treated as a terrorist attack. However, the death of George Floyd in 2020, the police shooting of Aboriginal boy Kumanjai Walker in 2019, and footage from the Gaza War are subject to similar censorship, despite the risk of provoking similar riots. There was no attempt.
Nevertheless, Elon Musk initially agreed to “geoblock” the footage in Australia so that Australian users could not view it on the X. However, this was not enough for Inman Grant. She called on Musk to censor the video for everyone’s sake. Apparently, some Australians use VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to hide their physical location online, so no one in the world can guarantee that Australians won’t be able to see their videos. It is only prohibited. When Musk refused, Inman Grant obtained a temporary restraining order requiring him to comply with X. Many Australian politicians went on to accuse Mr Musk of breaking Australian law. Even Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called Musk an “arrogant billionaire” for refusing to cooperate.
Needless to say, Inman Grant is not exactly a free speech activist. She spoke about the benefits of internet regulation at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos and has played a central role in coordinating the efforts of the Global Network of Online Safety Regulators, a loose organization of internet regulators. did. She once attended Davos in 2022, advocating for a “recalibration” of free speech (i.e., that we should stop treating speech as important). Still, her latest intervention is highly authoritarian even by that standard.
Thankfully, the eSafety Commissioner’s case against Mr. Musk hit a steep slope last week when the Federal Court of Australia refused to extend an injunction against the video. For now, X continues to allow non-Australian users to view footage for free.
A key element of Justice Jeffrey Kennett’s argument was the international impact of the Electronic Safety Commission’s requirements. “Apart from the question of freedom of expression in Australia, there is widespread alarm at the prospect of a decision by central government officials to restrict access.” People around the world are taking to the Internet to discuss I paid attention to the content. It is said that if such capabilities existed, they could be used by different regimes for a variety of purposes, not all of which would be benign. ”
Justice Kennett also rightly found that Inman Grant “would set a dangerous precedent because it would determine what users of social media services around the world can see on those services.” …The interests of millions of people unrelated to the lawsuit will be affected. ‘
The details of this case perfectly illustrate the extreme dangers of allowing unaccountable bureaucrats to police the Internet at their whim. Inman Grant’s revenge against X is clearly lame and biased. Court documents show her video censorship efforts were launched based on just four complaints from Australian citizens. And, as Judge Kennett noted, “there is no dispute that the stabbing video is now available for viewing on Internet platforms other than X.” Inman Grant’s decision to specifically target X and Musk was clearly political.
She also has no intention of backing down. Although the injunction has been lifted, the eSafety Commissioner is still seeking to impose a large fine on X for failing to comply with the notice. A full hearing is scheduled for late July 2024, and the recent Australian Commonwealth Budget allocated $1.4 million in additional funding to her office “to support legal and compliance functions”. Inman Grant would thus raise cash at taxpayer expense to further the fight to impose worldwide censorship.
If she succeeds, it would set a shockingly dangerous precedent. If something similar happened in other countries, internet regulators around the world could order social media companies to remove content not only in their own countries but around the world. Under no circumstances can we allow unelected bureaucrats in Australia to decide what the rest of the world can read, hear and see.
John Storey is director of law and policy at the Institute of Public Affairs.
