Using Australian laws to force a foreign-owned platform to take down content globally sets a risky precedent – should we allow all countries to impose their laws on the internet?

Do Australian courts have the right to decide what foreign citizens, located overseas, view online on a foreign-owned platform?

Anyone inclined to answer “yes” to this question should perhaps also ask themselves whether they are equally happy for courts in China, Russia and Iran to determine what Australians can see and post online in Australia.

This is the problem with global “take-down orders”, an issue we now must confront in light of the Australian eSafety commissioner demanding that social media platform X (formerly Twitter) remove videos of a violent stabbing at a church in Sydney.

  • slazer2au@lemmy.worldEnglish
    152·
    2 months ago

    As always the world is not black and white. Just because one supports taking down graphic videos of terror events, it does not mean one supports more great firewalls

    I do think the videos should be taken down as they serve no purpose other than fueling flames of hatred. Should a government take down a video that is critical of their actions with verified sources? No. Should they be able to take one down that is critical of their actions with fake information or blatant lies? Yes.

    • MHLoppy@fedia.ioOP
      71·
      2 months ago

      The article’s point is that there isn’t really a distinction between the two legally.

      • Ilandar@aussie.zone
        8·
        2 months ago

        That was one of the takeaways, yes, but the other point being made was that in this specific instance there is no legitimate free speech/anti-censorship argument coming from Musk/X,

        There can sometimes be real tension between free speech and the suppression of violent imagery. For example, some news reporting from military conflicts may be deemed too graphic by some, while others view it as a necessary tool to illustrate the level of violence being committed.

        Here, there are no such complex considerations. There is simply no arguable value in keeping the videos online. Consequently, while removing the content can be described as censorship, it is hard to understand why anyone would object to this censorship.

        After all, not even the staunchest free speech advocates would be able to credibly object to all censorship. (For example, consider the publication of child abuse materials or Musk’s credit card details.)

        …the platforms must act maturely. While other platforms responded to the eSafety commissioner by swiftly blocking the content, X decided to fight for the “right” to display violent extremism in action.

        The fact Musk views this as a suitable battleground for free speech shows that we have a long way to go in finding solutions to the regulation of the internet.

        • Hanrahan@slrpnk.netEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          I saw Gab went long in the umbrage of them being asked to take it downs and treated with some disdain the Australian Government take down notice. :)

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        2·
        2 months ago

        That’s a failure of the law then.

        There’s a clear distinction any way you slice it between broadcasting a violent assault and propaganda. Free speech isn’t absolute anywhere.