U.S. billionaire Elon Musk has responded to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after he criticised X (formally Twitter) for refusing to comply with an order from the country’s online regulator to remove content.
The battle between the X owner and the Australian government has continued after the Federal Court of Australia issued a two-day injunction forcing the Big Tech company to block all users around the world from viewing footage of an alleged terror attack in a Sydney church.
On April 23, Mr. Musk posted a cartoon showing a person standing at a three-way junction on his account.
One path leads to “free speech” and “truth” with the logo of X, while the other path leads to “censorship” and “propaganda” with the logo of other social media platforms, including YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Thread, and Reddit.
“Don’t take my words for it, just ask the Australian PM!” the billionaire said.
The prime minister on April 23, responded to the X post by deriding Mr. Musk as lacking “common decency.”
“I think that 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, which are very distressing,” he told reporters.
“This bloke thinks he’s above the Australian law, that he’s above common decency.”
Mr. Albanese also tapped into well-used class warfare rhetoric to criticise the tech entrepreneur.
“This has been a distressing time and I find this bloke on the other side of the world, from his billionaires’ establishments trying to lecture Australians on free speech—well I won’t cop it and Australians won’t either.”
Where It All Began
The prime minister had earlier criticised X for not following the initial order from the eSafety Commission.The attack was later declared a terrorist incident by police.
While X says it complied with instructions to remove the content domestically, it has refused to follow an order to remove the content around the world.
“While X respects the right of a country to enforce its laws within its jurisdiction, the eSafety commissioner does not have the authority to dictate what content X’s users can see globally. We will robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court,” X’s Global Government Affairs platform said.
“By and large, people responded appropriately to the calls by the eSafety Commissioner. X chose not to,” said Prime Minister Albanese.
“I think overwhelmingly, Australians want misinformation and disinformation to stop.”
In response, Mr. Musk shared a post featuring these comments, adding that, “I’d like to take a moment to thank the PM for informing the public that this platform is the only truthful one.”
Court Moves to Force X to Remove Content Globally
Yet on April 22, in a rush hearing instigated by the eSafety commissioner, Australia’s Federal Court granted a two-day injunction against X to remove all content around the world related to the terror attack.The social media giant has two days to respond.
Further, if X were to comply with an order to remove content globally, questions remain over whether this sets a further precedent for authorities to dictate what social media platforms can and cannot publish.
eSafety Commissioner ‘More Like An Activist’: Union
The Free Speech Union of Australia has raised concerns about the two-day injunction granted by the Federal Court, saying it was a case of “ambushing X without them having a proper right of reply.”“This is part of a pattern where the eSafety Commissioner’s office seemingly engages in gamesmanship rather than respecting the rule of law or acting as a model litigant,” said Reuben Kirkham, co-director of the group in a media release.
Mr. Kirkham added that “attempts to censor what can be accessed in other countries is likely to bring her office and Australia into further disrepute.”
“We would not consider her proposed step of requiring a global—rather than an Australian ban—to be legally reasonable. Nor does any ban seem to be consistent with the implied freedom of political communication provided for by our Constitution and which she is not allowed to interfere with under the Online Safety Act.”
