Elon Musk vs Australia: global content take-down orders can harm the internet if adopted widely
Retrieved on:
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Do Australian courts have the right to decide what foreign citizens, located overseas, view online on a foreign-owned platform?
Key Points:
- Do Australian courts have the right to decide what foreign citizens, located overseas, view online on a foreign-owned platform?
- Read more:
Elon Musk is mad he's been ordered to remove Sydney church stabbing videos from X.
Do global take-down orders work?
- There can be no doubt that a global take-down order can be justified in some instances.
- For example, child abuse materials and so-called revenge porn are clear examples of content that should be removed with global effect.
- After all, international law imposes limitations on what demands Australian law can place on foreigners acting outside Australia.
An unusually poor ‘test case’ for free speech
- But for the broader Australian public, this must appear like an odd occasion to fight for free speech.
- There can sometimes be real tension between free speech and the suppression of violent imagery.
- After all, not even the staunchest free speech advocates would be able to credibly object to all censorship.
The path forward
- Global take-down orders are justifiable in some situations, but cannot be the default position for all content that violates some law somewhere in the world.
- If we had to comply with all content laws worldwide, the internet would no longer be as valuable as it is today.
- Read more:
Regulating content won't make the internet safer - we have to change the business models
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.