ABC News (Archive)
Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant confirmed the Federal Court case would be abandoned, after several blows in court and an attempt to temporarily force the footage to be hidden expiring.
"After weighing multiple considerations, including litigation across multiple cases, I have considered this option likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children," Ms Inman-Grant said.
"Our sole goal and focus in issuing our removal notice was to prevent this extremely violent footage from going viral, potentially inciting further violence and inflicting more harm on the Australian community and I stand by my investigators and the decisions eSafety made."
The case was seen as a test of Australia's ability to enforce online safety requirements on the social media platforms.
Posting on social media, X's government affairs arm celebrated the announcement.
"This case has raised important questions on how legal powers can be used to threaten global censorship of speech, and we are heartened to see that freedom of speech has prevailed," the company said.
Platforms 'monetising misery': News Corp boss
The social media platform initially refused an eSafety notice to remove the graphic stabbing videos, later deemed an act of terror, but the Federal Court temporarily ordered X to hide the videos.
X again refused to comply with that court order, arguing the initial take down order was not valid.
Mr Musk has repeatedly taunted the commissioner over her attempt to remove footage of Wakeley bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being stabbed, calling her a global "censorship commissar".
News Corp Australia's executive chair Michael Miller has told the National Press Club that social media companies are "monetising misery", and profiting from violent and harmful content.
Mr Miller said the days of the digital Wild West had to stop.
"These companies have immense power, and it is critical that they do not undermine Australia’s sovereignty," Mr Miller said.
Responding to the eSafety commissioner dropping its legal challenge, Mr Miller said the case for change may in fact be proved "by losing in court, rather than by winning".
He said "social licence" laws should hold tech platforms accountable for the content they host if they want access to the Australian market.
Musk taunts led to commissioner's children being doxxed
In an exclusive interview with ABC Afternoon Briefing, Ms Inman-Grant argued the way the social media companies are structured meant content must be removed "globally", and Australia should have the right to issue those take downs.
"The idea of global deletion or wanting to 'globally censor' the internet is really a furphy ... the simple fact of the matter is with all of these companies, they don't have internet infrastructure or servers here, the only way you can remove that content is at scale, at the source, which is in California," she said.
Ms Inman-Grant noted X routinely complied with take down notices, and that other major social media platforms had complied with the request to remove the stabbing footage.
She also told the ABC Mr Musk's attack against her resulted in a pile-on from his millions of followers, and the personal information of her children being exposed online.
"He issued a dog-whistle to 181 million users around the globe, which resulted in death threats directed at me, which resulted in doxxing of my family members, including my three children, so I think with great power comes with great responsibility," the commissioner said.
"Targeting a regulator who is here to protect the citizens of Australia is really beyond the pale, but it's not surprising [from Mr Musk]."
Ms Inman-Grant said however she would not be cowed, and other litigation against X would continue.
The commissioner said she would now focus her efforts on those matters and an independent review of her removal notice issued to X by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Video interview from article:
- In short: X will be able to continue hosting graphic stabbing videos, with a legal challenge now abandoned.
- The eSafety commissioner's attempted take down was seen as a test case for Australia's ability to enforce online safety standards.
- What's next? The commissioner says she won't be cowed, and will focus on an independent review into the issue.
Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant confirmed the Federal Court case would be abandoned, after several blows in court and an attempt to temporarily force the footage to be hidden expiring.
"After weighing multiple considerations, including litigation across multiple cases, I have considered this option likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children," Ms Inman-Grant said.
"Our sole goal and focus in issuing our removal notice was to prevent this extremely violent footage from going viral, potentially inciting further violence and inflicting more harm on the Australian community and I stand by my investigators and the decisions eSafety made."
The case was seen as a test of Australia's ability to enforce online safety requirements on the social media platforms.
Posting on social media, X's government affairs arm celebrated the announcement.
"This case has raised important questions on how legal powers can be used to threaten global censorship of speech, and we are heartened to see that freedom of speech has prevailed," the company said.
Platforms 'monetising misery': News Corp boss
The social media platform initially refused an eSafety notice to remove the graphic stabbing videos, later deemed an act of terror, but the Federal Court temporarily ordered X to hide the videos.
X again refused to comply with that court order, arguing the initial take down order was not valid.
Mr Musk has repeatedly taunted the commissioner over her attempt to remove footage of Wakeley bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being stabbed, calling her a global "censorship commissar".
News Corp Australia's executive chair Michael Miller has told the National Press Club that social media companies are "monetising misery", and profiting from violent and harmful content.
Mr Miller said the days of the digital Wild West had to stop.
"These companies have immense power, and it is critical that they do not undermine Australia’s sovereignty," Mr Miller said.
Responding to the eSafety commissioner dropping its legal challenge, Mr Miller said the case for change may in fact be proved "by losing in court, rather than by winning".
He said "social licence" laws should hold tech platforms accountable for the content they host if they want access to the Australian market.
Musk taunts led to commissioner's children being doxxed
In an exclusive interview with ABC Afternoon Briefing, Ms Inman-Grant argued the way the social media companies are structured meant content must be removed "globally", and Australia should have the right to issue those take downs.
"The idea of global deletion or wanting to 'globally censor' the internet is really a furphy ... the simple fact of the matter is with all of these companies, they don't have internet infrastructure or servers here, the only way you can remove that content is at scale, at the source, which is in California," she said.
Ms Inman-Grant noted X routinely complied with take down notices, and that other major social media platforms had complied with the request to remove the stabbing footage.
She also told the ABC Mr Musk's attack against her resulted in a pile-on from his millions of followers, and the personal information of her children being exposed online.
"He issued a dog-whistle to 181 million users around the globe, which resulted in death threats directed at me, which resulted in doxxing of my family members, including my three children, so I think with great power comes with great responsibility," the commissioner said.
"Targeting a regulator who is here to protect the citizens of Australia is really beyond the pale, but it's not surprising [from Mr Musk]."
Ms Inman-Grant said however she would not be cowed, and other litigation against X would continue.
The commissioner said she would now focus her efforts on those matters and an independent review of her removal notice issued to X by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Video interview from article:
Last edited:
