Australia’s eSafety commissioner’s attempt to block Australians from accessing footage of the terrorist stabbing of Sydney bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel has been thwarted, marking a victory for tech giant X.
In April, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant directed X (formerly Twitter) to remove access to the video for Australian users, categorizing the footage as Class 1 material, reserved for content that depicts extreme violence or child abuse. Although X complied with a takedown notice by implementing “geo-blocking,” Australian users utilizing VPNs could still access the attack footage on the platform, and the tech company refused to completely remove the content.
During a brief court hearing on Monday morning, Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett announced that the application to extend the interim injunction, initially granted on April 22, 2024, and extended on April 24, had been rejected. The court deferred the decision on costs associated with the application.
Justice Kennett’s rationale for the decision will be made available either later on Monday or on Tuesday.
During Friday’s hearing, barrister Tim Begbie KC, representing eSafety, emphasized that the material posted online depicted “actual graphic and shocking moments of that attacker allegedly repeatedly and violently stabbing” the bishop. The commission advocated for the authority to enforce global takedown orders, asserting that worldwide censorship of material Canberra sees as offensive aligns with Australia’s online safety legislation.
Barrister Bret Walker SC, representing X Corp alongside law firm Ashurst, argued that it would be concerning if the only way X could reasonably comply with a takedown order was to remove the content for users worldwide. He described it as “remarkable” to consider denying access to the content for everyone on earth as the sole means of controlling what is available to end-users in Australia.
Walker also questioned the validity of the notice issued by the eSafety commissioner’s office, highlighting discrepancies under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. He noted that Mar Mari Emmanuel did not advocate for the removal of the footage from online platforms.
Meanwhile, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sought to intervene in the case between the eSafety Commission and X Corp to present arguments regarding the global applicability of the takedown notice. Another case management hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.