Elon Musk is currently embroiled in a battle with Australian authorities over demands for X to remove violent content of a stabbing that took place during a livestreamed service at a church in Sydney last week. Musk is arguing that such decisions could give countries the power to control “the entire internet,” while the Australian government is arguing that geoblocking content isn’t enough in its plea for decency and social responsibility.

“Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian ‘eSafety Commissar’ is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?” said Musk, noting that the objectionable content is already geoblocked in Australia and only resides on US servers.

Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that “social media companies, that make a lot of money out of their business, have a social responsibility” to remove violent content from their platforms.

On Monday, the Australian eSafety Commission argued that geoblocking did not meet the definition of removal of the footage under the Online Safety Act, which gives Commissioner Julie Inman Grant power to order the removal of materials that “promotes, incites, instructs in or depicts abhorrent violent conduct, such as kidnapping, rape, torture, murder, attempted murder and terrorist acts” if it could “go viral and cause significant harm to the Australian community.”

This dispute started on April 16th, when Meta and X — formerly known as Twitter — were ordered by Inman Grant to globally remove videos and imagery of the stabbing within 24 hours or risk facing fines that depend on “the gravity of the non-compliance.” The maximum penalty is about $500,000 per violation, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a blog post on Monday, Meta said it had complied with the order to “protect the community from harmful content.”

“While the majority of mainstream social media platforms have engaged with us, I am not satisfied enough is being done to protect Australians from this most extreme and gratuitous violent material circulating online,” Inman Grant said at a press conference on April 16th. “That is why I am exercising my powers under the Online Safety Act to formally compel them to remove it.”

X’s Global Government Affairs team responded with a statement a few days later, noting it had complied with the order despite claiming the posts don’t violate the platform’s rules on violent speech. X said it would challenge the global takedown order in court and claimed they “go against the very principles of a free and open internet and threaten free speech everywhere.” 

On Monday, the Federal Court of Australia hit X with an injunction compelling the platform to temporarily hide the violent content for global users until the court can determine the validity of Inman Grant’s removal notice.

“We’ll do what’s necessary to take on this arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law, but also above common decency,” Albanese told ABC News on Tuesday. “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. Social media needs to have social responsibility with it. Mr Musk is not showing any.”

Musk has lashed out multiple times on X over the ruling, accusing the Australian prime minister and eSafety commissioner of limiting global free speech. “Should the eSafety Commissar (an unelected official) in Australia have authority over all countries on Earth?” Musk said in a post, having previously referred to Inman Grant as the “Australian censorship commissar.”

Earlier this month, Musk had a face-off against Brazil after he claimed to have defied orders to block certain X user accounts, prompting an investigation over potential obstruction of justice. The spat was later settled on April 15th after a letter from Musk’s lawyers said that “all orders issued by this Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court will continue to be fully complied with by X Corp.”

Elon Musk is currently embroiled in a battle with Australian authorities over demands for X to remove violent content of a stabbing that took place during a livestreamed service at a church in Sydney last week. Musk is arguing that such decisions could give countries the power to control “the entire internet,” while the Australian government is arguing that geoblocking content isn’t enough in its plea for decency and social responsibility.

“Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian ‘eSafety Commissar’ is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?” said Musk, noting that the objectionable content is already geoblocked in Australia and only resides on US servers.

Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that “social media companies, that make a lot of money out of their business, have a social responsibility” to remove violent content from their platforms.

On Monday, the Australian eSafety Commission argued that geoblocking did not meet the definition of removal of the footage under the Online Safety Act, which gives Commissioner Julie Inman Grant power to order the removal of materials that “promotes, incites, instructs in or depicts abhorrent violent conduct, such as kidnapping, rape, torture, murder, attempted murder and terrorist acts” if it could “go viral and cause significant harm to the Australian community.”

This dispute started on April 16th, when Meta and X — formerly known as Twitter — were ordered by Inman Grant to globally remove videos and imagery of the stabbing within 24 hours or risk facing fines that depend on “the gravity of the non-compliance.” The maximum penalty is about $500,000 per violation, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a blog post on Monday, Meta said it had complied with the order to “protect the community from harmful content.”

“While the majority of mainstream social media platforms have engaged with us, I am not satisfied enough is being done to protect Australians from this most extreme and gratuitous violent material circulating online,” Inman Grant said at a press conference on April 16th. “That is why I am exercising my powers under the Online Safety Act to formally compel them to remove it.”

X’s Global Government Affairs team responded with a statement a few days later, noting it had complied with the order despite claiming the posts don’t violate the platform’s rules on violent speech. X said it would challenge the global takedown order in court and claimed they “go against the very principles of a free and open internet and threaten free speech everywhere.” 

On Monday, the Federal Court of Australia hit X with an injunction compelling the platform to temporarily hide the violent content for global users until the court can determine the validity of Inman Grant’s removal notice.

“We’ll do what’s necessary to take on this arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law, but also above common decency,” Albanese told ABC News on Tuesday. “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. Social media needs to have social responsibility with it. Mr Musk is not showing any.”

Musk has lashed out multiple times on X over the ruling, accusing the Australian prime minister and eSafety commissioner of limiting global free speech. “Should the eSafety Commissar (an unelected official) in Australia have authority over all countries on Earth?” Musk said in a post, having previously referred to Inman Grant as the “Australian censorship commissar.”

Earlier this month, Musk had a face-off against Brazil after he claimed to have defied orders to block certain X user accounts, prompting an investigation over potential obstruction of justice. The spat was later settled on April 15th after a letter from Musk’s lawyers said that “all orders issued by this Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court will continue to be fully complied with by X Corp.”