Threats and Online Abuse Directed at Australia’s Internet Watchdog
Australia’s internet watchdog, eSafety, has faced a wave of threats and online abuse following its decision to order the removal of footage depicting a Christian church stabbing from a popular social media platform. The incident occurred during a live-streamed church service on April 15, when a teenager dressed in black approached Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and attacked him with a knife. Recognizing the graphic and disturbing nature of the video, eSafety issued notices to various social media companies, requesting the removal of the content due to its gratuitous and offensive violence.
While some companies, such as Meta, complied with the notice and took down the videos, one social media platform, referred to as X Corp, resisted the request. Instead of completely removing the 65 URLs containing the stabbing video, X Corp chose to geo-block the content from Australian users while keeping it accessible to users outside of Australia. The company argued that eSafety’s demand for global removal was unreasonable. However, eSafety deemed this partial action insufficient and decided to take legal action against X Corp, seeking a permanent injunction and civil penalties.
Safety Concerns for eSafety Staff
The situation escalated when eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant and other staff members began receiving numerous threats and online abuse. The eSafety Commission’s general manager of regulatory operations, Toby Dagg, expressed concern for Commissioner Inman Grant’s safety and the well-being of her family. In response, eSafety sought assistance from both the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police Force. The gravity of the threats prompted Mr. Dagg to request that the court suppress the names of all eSafety staff members involved in the case to safeguard their safety.
Court Rejects eSafety’s Power to Block Content Overseas
However, in a judgement on May 14, Justice Geoffrey Kennett denied eSafety’s application for a global interim injunction extension. The judge stated that eSafety’s request lacked a genuine connection to Australia’s interests and that enforcing a ban outside of Australia would undermine the principle of the “comity of nations,” which involves recognizing the laws and customs of other countries. Justice Kennett emphasized that such an extensive notice would likely be disregarded or criticized by other nations. As a result, the court ruled against eSafety’s attempt to block the content globally.
Ongoing Legal Proceedings and Bishop’s Support for X Corp
The legal case between eSafety and X Corp is ongoing, with a two-day hearing scheduled to begin on July 24. In the midst of this contentious situation, Bishop Mar Emmanuel, the victim of the church stabbing, expressed his support for X Corp’s position. In an affidavit submitted to the court, the bishop argued that Australian citizens have a God-given right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He also expressed concerns that individuals might exploit the stabbing video for political purposes and undermine free speech.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding eSafety’s order to remove the church stabbing video has not only led to legal battles but has also raised important questions about the balance between protecting individuals from disturbing content and preserving freedom of speech. While eSafety sought to address the graphic nature of the video, X Corp resisted a global removal, arguing that it was an unreasonable demand. The court’s ruling rejecting eSafety’s power to block content overseas highlights the complexities involved in regulating online platforms on a global scale. Ultimately, this ongoing case will shape the future of internet regulation in Australia and potentially have implications for online content moderation worldwide.
