In the unedifying clash of heads between billionaire Twitter/X owner, Elon Musk, and Australiaâs e-safety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, there could only be one rightful winner. Elon Musk.
On Monday, Muskâs X succeeded in having a temporary injunction thrown out by Australiaâs Federal Court preventing it and Mark Zuckerbergâs Meta from posting images of last monthâs Sydney stabbing. An Armenian Orthodox bishop, Mar Mari Emmanuel, was attacked in his church, allegedly by a religiously radicalised youth, in April. The incident was captured by the churchâs own livestream of the event and beamed across the internet: the footage is disturbing but already there for the world to see, if anyone chose to see it.
This sorry episode is a reminder that these cherished freedoms cannot be taken for granted
Inman Grant, backed enthusiastically by Australiaâs prime minister Anthony Albanese and his Labor government, sought not only to block social media posts of the images from Australia, but wanted the platforms to remove worldwide posts altogether, consistent with Australiaâs e-safety legislation. Effectively, the Australian government official claimed worldwide jurisdiction to tell the likes of X and Facebook what they, and their users, could and could not post.
The injunction caused a war of words and tweets between Musk, Albanese and a host of Australian ministers and MPs, with Musk playing free speechâs white knight. A voluble independent senator, Tasmaniaâs Jacqui Lambie, in particular poured petrol on the fire by labelling Musk a âknobâ with no social conscience who should be jailed. Musk retaliated on X, declaring Lambie âan enemy of the people of Australiaâ. All very entertaining, but helping nobody.
The e-safety commissionerâs application to extend the temporary injunction indefinitely was heard on Friday. The senior counsel for X, Bret Walker, told the court it was âremarkableâ that the commissioner was arguing âthe only way to control what is available to end users in AustraliaâŚ(is) to deny it to everybody on earthâ. Walker also noted that Bishop Emmanuel himself supported the images being posted. The bishop said that âevery human being has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religionâ and that he didnât fear for his safety by the images being circulated.
Today, Mr Justice Kennett of the Federal Court ruled for X and threw out the injunction. This also indicates the likely outcome of an upcoming full hearing into the commissionerâs action against the social media giants.
The judge hasnât yet released the reasons for his findings. But presumably he was satisfied that the freedoms of speech and expression must be upheld, and the e-safety commissionerâs assumptions of worldwide jurisdiction were, to put it mildly, absurd. Musk tweeted again soon after. âNot trying to win anything. I just donât think we should be suppressing Australiaâs rights to free speechâ, he said.
There is no denying the images and video of the Sydney stabbing incident are violent and disturbing. For some, they may be a form of violence voyeurism, viewed by a sick few simply because of what they are. But thatâs no reason for a government or government agency to censor and suppress them.
Musk may be outspoken, eccentric, and not everyoneâs cup of tea. But he is right to uphold the freedoms of speech and expression fundamental to a democratic society. He is also right to assume that intelligent people are capable of using their own judgment when deciding whether or not to see posts of those images, or indeed any content that is confronting in its violence and brutality.
If Australiaâs e-safety commissioner had her way, we would never see for ourselves visual evidence of Hamasâs atrocities on 7 October, or the consequent destruction in Gaza. We would never have seen the twin towers fall, or witness what the British liberators of the Belsen concentration camp saw with their own eyes. Once the censoring starts, where does it stop?
An irony of this sorry episode is that the central figure, Julie Inman Grant, is American-born and educated. The First Amendment of the United States constitution, decreeing that Congress shall âmake no lawâŚabridging freedom of speech, or of the pressâ, is part of Inman Grantâs American heritage. Yet in Australia both she and the government she serves seemingly believe these fundamental freedoms must be reined in and supervised by government, and that their citizens need to be protected from themselves.
In challenging Inman Grantâs rulings, Musk struck a blow for free speech not just in Australia, but in Britain, the United States and the West in general. For the rest of us, however, this sorry episode is a reminder not only that these cherished freedoms cannot be taken for granted, but also that we should treat them as a precious privilege to be used wisely and responsibly. If we donât, there are many more Julie Inman Grants and Anthony Albaneses ready and willing in these times of cancel culture to curtail those freedoms in what they â not you â choose to define as the public interest.
Comments