Australia abandons court action against X concerning a church stabbing video.
Julie Inman Grant intended to take legal action following X's noncompliance with a takedown order from Australia's Online Safety Act. However, she announced her intention to merge the case with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), an independent tribunal that assesses commissioner decisions.
"After deliberating many points, such as ongoing litigation and multiple cases, I've determined this choice might bring the best result for the online safety of Australians, particularly children," Inman Grant declared in a statement.
The Online Safety Commissioner urged X to conceal the clip for international users. Musk voiced his opposition to the request as a potential excessive extension of authority by an unappointed mandate that might establish a precedent for other countries to compel the removal of sensitive info.
"There's a real risk that if any country can censor content for all countries, as the Australian 'eSafety Commissioner' is asserting, then who will prevent any country from governing the entire internet?", Musk tweeted in April.
X praised the move as a triumph for free expression on social media.
"This case has surfaced substantial concerns over how legal resources can be used to threaten global censorship of speech, and we're heartened by the victory of free speech," it stated.
Joanne Gray, a Sydney University lecturer in digital cultures, deemed the decision to abandon legal action rational for a publicly funded institution. Nonetheless, she highlighted the unresolved matter of Australia's legal jurisdiction over online material.
"Although Musk may claim this as a free speech triumph, I'd suggest it's more a corporate victory, indicating the strength of platform companies to operate outside government supervision," Gray noted.
The controversial video depicted the moment Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel was allegedly stabbed by a 16-year-old attacker. It sparked riots outside the church, with authorities attributing the disturbance to the video's rapid sharing on the internet.
X's lawyers maintained in court documents that the company had taken down certain URLs but that the video remained accessible to Australians on other sites. Musk's legal team also cited that the video was distributed with the bishop's approval rather than by his attacker.
"Accepting the right to free speech and freedom of religion, I have no qualms about the video remaining online," the bishop stated in court filings.
In her statement, Inman Grant insisted that she was committed to protecting the Australian public, emphasizing that taking down the video was her primary intention.
"Pursuing this matter allowed us to test our 'cutting-edge regulatory powers' designed to shield Australians from internet-based harm," Inman Grant stated.
Inman Grant revealed to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that she'd experienced personal attacks, including death threats, from Musk's supporters.
"Subjecting a regulator tasked with protecting Australians is over the line. However, this isn't surprising," Inman Grant reportedly said to the ABC.
X, previously named Twitter, has endured consistent criticism for its handling of offensive and inflammatory content since it was purchased by Musk in 2022.
Last month, the platform appointed a new Head of Safety, nine months after the previous safety head left his post after serving for merely seven months.
Read also:
After the announcement of merging the case with the AAT, there's been discussion in the media about the implications for online business regulations. The decision to abandon the court action against X by the Online Safety Commissioner has sparked debate in the business sector regarding the balance between free expression and digital safety.
