In a surprising turn of events, an Assyrian Christian bishop who was brutally attacked during a live-streamed sermon has publicly stated that he does not want the footage of the incident removed from the internet. This controversial stance has sparked a heated debate between Australian authorities and Elon Musk’s social media platform, X.
The video of the multiple stabbing attack has become the focal point of an ongoing legal battle between the eSafety Commission and X. Lawyers for the eSafety Commission recently applied for an injunction to force X to block all videos of the incident globally. However, X argues that this request goes beyond the jurisdiction of local authorities.
During a case management hearing, Marcus Hoyne, a representative of X, presented an affidavit from Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, who expressed his strong belief that the video should remain accessible. This unexpected testimony has added fuel to the fire and complicated the legal proceedings.
Mr. Hoyne also criticized Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, for attempting to implement a global ban on the video’s spread, deeming it “exorbitant.” He argued that any attempt to remove the video at this point would be futile due to the Streisand effect, which refers to the unintended consequence of attempting to hide or censor information resulting in even more publicity.
The judge presiding over the case ordered a further hearing on May 10, allowing X to present more detailed arguments. This decision indicates that the court recognizes the complexity of the situation and the need for thorough examination before reaching a verdict.
The attack itself occurred in the Western Sydney suburb of Wakeley, where a 16-year-old approached the bishop during a live-streamed sermon and repeatedly stabbed him with a flick knife, which appeared to malfunction. The incident took place just days after a separate knife attack spree in Sydney’s Westfield Bondi Junction shopping center, leading authorities to take action against “misinformation” and related videos on social media platforms.
The bishop’s decision to advocate for the video’s accessibility online raises important questions about the balance between free speech and the potential harm caused by the dissemination of violent content. While some may argue that removing the video would help prevent the glorification of violence, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel’s stance challenges this notion and highlights the importance of considering diverse perspectives in these discussions.
As the legal battle between Australian authorities and X continues, it remains to be seen how the court will navigate the complexities of this case. The outcome will likely have significant implications for the regulation of online content and the limits of freedom of expression in the digital age.
