At the heart of a legal battle in Australia lies Elon Musk’s platform X, formerly known as Twitter, and its stance on content removal versus national law. The country’s cyber regulator insists that while X has its policies for removing harmful content, it shouldn’t override Australian legislation dictating what can be accessed within its borders.
In a Federal Court hearing, lawyer Tim Begbie representing the cyber regulator argued that X’s willingness to remove harmful content globally when it deems fit contrasts with its resistance to comply with Australian laws. He emphasized that other platforms, like Meta, swiftly took down the contentious video of an Assyrian Christian bishop being attacked, deemed a terrorist act by authorities. Begbie contended that X’s opposition to the global removal of such content essentially attempts to define the term “reasonable” within the framework of Australia’s Online Safety Act.
X, under Musk’s ownership, asserts its commitment to safeguarding free speech but refuses to globally remove the posts in question, citing the principle that one country’s regulations shouldn’t dictate internet content worldwide. Begbie countered, suggesting that X’s proposed solution of geo-blocking Australians proves ineffective, as many use virtual private networks to bypass such restrictions.
On the other side, X’s lawyer Bret Walker argued that the company had taken reasonable steps in line with Australian laws to address the issue. He cautioned against the implication that limiting access to content globally is an acceptable solution, emphasizing the importance of global access to newsworthy information and diverse viewpoints.
As the legal proceedings unfold, Federal Court Judge Geoffrey Kennett has issued a temporary takedown order for the posts, extending it until June 10 pending a final decision. The case underscores the complex interplay between global platforms, national legislation, and the regulation of online content.
