Aussie Government Fails To Force Elon Musk’s X To Censor Content

Aussie Government Fails To Force Elon Musk’s X To Censor Content

By Steve Watson | Modernity.news

The Australian government has abruptly dropped its efforts to force Elon Musk’s X to remove footage from April of an Islamist violently attacking a Christian Bishop.

As we previously highlighted, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his government went to war with Musk, after the X owner refused demands to remove all copies of a video of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being stabbed during a live streamed mass.

Australia’s so called ‘eSafety Commissioner’ Julie Inman-Grant, an unelected official, ordered X to remove footage of the attack under the Online Safety Act, passed in 2021, which empowers the eSafety department to demand the removal of so-called ‘class 1 material’.

In response, Musk urged that “no president, prime minister or judge has authority over all of Earth! This platform adheres to the laws of countries in those countries, but it would be improper to extend one country’s rulings to other countries. If [Albanese wants] to censor things in other countries, he should bring a legal action to bear in those countries.”

Other government officials even called for Musk to be thrown in prison over the incident:

Albanese appeared to call for a ban on memes, with his government having also proposed a so-called misinformation bill, released as a draft last year, which would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to require online platforms to remove or restrict content considered “false, misleading or deceptive, and where the provision of that content on the service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm,” according to the wording of the draft legislation.

Now, however, Australia’s so called ‘eSafety Commissioner’ has declared that the Federal Court case is to be abandoned owing to legal red tape and the expiration of a temporary order to conceal the video.

“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,” said Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant.

She further claimed “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 and I stand by my investigators and the decisions eSafety made.”

Grant didn’t go after the scores of mainstream news websites or YouTube for also carrying the footage, but rather focused on social media, and X in particular.

Reportedly, every other social media platform complied with the request to remove the footage. Only X stood its ground.

“Through this process, eSafety has also welcomed the opportunity to test its novel regulatory powers — set out under Australia’s Online Safety Act — to protect Australians from online harm,” The Commissioner added.

In other words, they were testing out what level of censorship they could get away with.

X responded to the development in a statement, noting “We welcome the news that the eSafety Commissioner is no longer pursuing legal action against X seeking the global removal of content that does not violate X’s rules.”

It continued, “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.”

Inman Grant claims that she has received death threats and been doxxed following Musk labelling her the “censorship commissar.”

Grant charged that Musk “issued a dog whistle to 181 million users around the globe, which resulted in death threats directed at me, which resulted in doxxing of my family members, including my three children, so I think with great power comes with great responsibility.”

She further asserted that “Targeting a regulator who is here to protect the citizens of Australia is really beyond the pale, but it’s not surprising.”

Bishop Emmanuel has recovered from the attack and says he has forgiven his attacker, calling for his supporters not to retaliate over the attack but to behave “Christlike.”

No one asked him for his opinion on whether people should be allowed to see the footage.

As we highlighted at the time, the reaction to the video of the attack was almost as revolting as the incident itself.

_________

MORE ELON NEWS

“Splashdown Confirmed”: Elon Musk’s Starship Successfully Completes Fourth Test

***********

(TLB) published this article by Steve Watson as posted at Modernity. news

A Note from PJW: Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Header featured imate (edited) credit:

Emphasis added by (TLB)

••••

••••

Stay tuned tuned…

 

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*