Cross posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/13351707

Australia’s prime minister has labelled X’s owner, Elon Musk, an “arrogant billionaire who thinks he is above the law” as the rift deepens between Australia and the tech platform over the removal of videos of a violent stabbing in a Sydney church.

On Monday evening in an urgent last-minute federal court hearing, the court ordered a two-day injunction against X to hide posts globally containing the footage of the alleged stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel on 15 April. The eSafety commissioner had previously directed X to remove the posts, but X had only blocked them from access in Australia pending a legal challenge.

Anthony Albanese on Tuesday said Musk was “a bloke who’s chosen ego and showing violence over common sense”.

“Australians will shake their head when they think that this billionaire is prepared to go to court fighting for the right to sow division and to show violent videos,” he told Sky News. “He is in social media, but he has a social responsibility in order to have that social licence.”

“What the eSafety commissioner is doing is doing her job to protect the interests of Australians. And the idea that someone would go to court for the right to put up violent content on a platform shows how out of touch Mr Musk is,” he said.

  • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    You do know that the USA is also a signatory to the Christchurch Call?

    It agreed to (among other things):

    “Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.”

    Law works by mutual agreement. This is how our global system hangs together. Just because this is being spearheaded by an Australian process, doesn’t make it apply only to Australia.

    This same process happens every day across the world. The only difference here is that the person on the other end is pretending that this is about free speech.

    Where’s the hue and cry from all the other platforms who just took it down? Are they perhaps more aware of how this works?

    Edit:

    Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but the Christchurch Call came into existence after a terrorist massacre was livestreamed from Christchurch. It’s not a random website, it’s the New Zealand government response to that event.

    Mutual obligations, agreements and treaties are what bind us together legally. Within the legal framework in Australia, CSE and terrorist video are the same, both considered Class 1. My reference to CSE was deliberate. From an Australian perspective they’re one and the same. Different countries can argue that they’re not, but that process is ongoing.

    Finally, courts making decisions that affect others happens all the time. Just look at the abortion mess currently playing out across courts all over the USA, not just from the SCOTUS down, but between states as well.

    This is the very same thing, it’s just happens to be a country border, not a state one.

    Edit 2:

    It’s not like the USA hasn’t done this to others either. Right now it’s making laws to force a company in another country to sell an asset, TicTok.