Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has announced she is withdrawing Federal Court action against Elon Musk’s X Corp over the platform’s carrying footage of the stabbing of a religious leader in a Sydney church in April.
In what she called a “consolidation” of the cases brought against the social media platform, she will now rely on another case also underway—this time in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—for a final ruling on the matter.
eSafety wanted X Corp to take down, across the entire platform, about 60 instances of footage of the alleged attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel at the Wakely church on April 15.
X complied by geo-blocking all posts on the stabbing within Australia, despite disagreeing with the ban.
However, it refused to remove the graphic videos internationally, leading the Commissioner to seek a ruling.
While waiting for the case to be heard, Mr. Musk was vocal in his opposition to Ms. Inman Grant’s order, calling her a global “censorship commissar.”
The Court then granted an interim injunction barring X from allowing anyone, anywhere, access to the video, but the company refused to comply.
But then, on May 13, in a major setback to eSafety’s case the Court ruled that its jurisdiction could not extend beyond Australia’s borders.
The Commissioner had, until today, continued the case, hoping to convince the court to fine the company for refusing to obey the interim injunction.
“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.
eSafety Stands By Request
X’s Government Affairs account responded to the decision, saying it was welcome news.“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.”
Ms. Inman Grant defended the process her office had followed.
“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,” she said.
“I stand by my investigators and the decisions eSafety made.
“As the national online safety regulator, I expect responsible companies to be taking action in relation to this type of content.”
Ms. Inman Grant noted other social media platforms and search engines, including Google and Meta, comply with her office’s content removal requests.
“And by its own admission, X Corp routinely does. For example, upon our request X globally removed a compilation video featuring footage of the Bondi stabbing, the Wakeley stabbing, and an older video of the killing of two Victorian police officers, when notified by eSafety following the attack,” she said.
“So, it was a reasonable expectation when we made our request to remove extremely graphic video of an attack that X Corp would take action in line with these publicly stated policies and practices.”
Justice Geoffrey Kennett reserved his ruling on costs when refusing to extend the interim injunction. The eSafety Commissioner’s abandonment of the case means her office will likely now face a substantial legal bill.
