Do Australian courts have the right to decide what foreign citizens, located overseas, view online on a foreign-owned platform?
Anyone inclined to answer “yes” to this question should perhaps also ask themselves whether they are equally happy for courts in China, Russia and Iran to determine what Australians can see and post online in Australia.
This is the problem with global “take-down orders”, an issue we now must confront in light of the Australian eSafety commissioner demanding that social media platform X (formerly Twitter) remove videos of a violent stabbing at a church in Sydney.
As always the world is not black and white. Just because one supports taking down graphic videos of terror events, it does not mean one supports more great firewalls
I do think the videos should be taken down as they serve no purpose other than fueling flames of hatred. Should a government take down a video that is critical of their actions with verified sources? No. Should they be able to take one down that is critical of their actions with fake information or blatant lies? Yes.
The article’s point is that there isn’t really a distinction between the two legally.
That was one of the takeaways, yes, but the other point being made was that in this specific instance there is no legitimate free speech/anti-censorship argument coming from Musk/X,
There can sometimes be real tension between free speech and the suppression of violent imagery. For example, some news reporting from military conflicts may be deemed too graphic by some, while others view it as a necessary tool to illustrate the level of violence being committed.
Here, there are no such complex considerations. There is simply no arguable value in keeping the videos online. Consequently, while removing the content can be described as censorship, it is hard to understand why anyone would object to this censorship.
After all, not even the staunchest free speech advocates would be able to credibly object to all censorship. (For example, consider the publication of child abuse materials or Musk’s credit card details.)
…the platforms must act maturely. While other platforms responded to the eSafety commissioner by swiftly blocking the content, X decided to fight for the “right” to display violent extremism in action.
The fact Musk views this as a suitable battleground for free speech shows that we have a long way to go in finding solutions to the regulation of the internet.
I saw Gab went long in the umbrage of them being asked to take it downs and treated with some disdain the Australian Government take down notice. :)
That’s a failure of the law then.
There’s a clear distinction any way you slice it between broadcasting a violent assault and propaganda. Free speech isn’t absolute anywhere.
It is reasonable for courts and legislation to have powers to protect victims of crime and their families from distribution of images and video of their suffering. It is a secondary victimization. How far that protection should extend is up for public debate. Our courts have a limited jurisdiction and it is just a matter of fact that we can’t enforce our domestic laws outside out borders anymore than an autocracy can suppress foreign reporting of their human rights abuses as much as they may try.
We broadly have two fairly obvious sets of international agreements that can get material taken down through most of the world. The first is child abuse material and the second is IP infringement.
Be a 24 year old Aussie battler with a part time job. Copy a Japanese manufacturer’s shitty kid’s game. You now owe $1.5 million dollars. Copyright is enforceable in practically every jurisdiction we care about.
Find the person who took the video, fairly compensate them for the rights, then issue a DMCA notice to Twitter. Job done. Censorship already exists. It is called IP rights and is enforced internationally through treaties.
I think we could have an argument that on the scale of stuff that should be censored to stuff that shouldn’t, protecting adult victims of violent crime seems like it should fall somewhere between child abuse and IP rights. It is a straw man argument to lump it in with the censorship demanded by authoritarian states.
@shirro @MHLoppy @australia The irony here is that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a piece of US legislation that is regularly used to take down content globally. Even when it’s posted by people who aren’t Americans.
Is the DMCA actually used to force non-US companies/individuals to take down content hosted outside of the US?
@Ilandar Most major platforms are based in the US.
A DMCA request basically means the flagged content is taken down globally, not just for the US.
If the person who uploaded that content is not a US citizen, it still gets pulled.
Yes but if the platform/company is based in the US then of course US laws directly apply to it. Whether global users can or do access the content is irrelevant to the comparison you’re making. In the Twitter vs Australia situation, Musk is arguing his US-based company cannot be forced to take down content based on Australian laws alone.
Our courts have a limited jurisdiction and it is just a matter of fact that we can’t enforce our domestic laws outside out borders anymore than an autocracy can suppress foreign reporting of their human rights abuses as much as they may try.
Are you saying this in a “this is how it _should work” way, or in a “this is how it does work” way? Because in the Xitter vs eSafety deal right now, an Australian court has already issued a temporary order to a non-Australian company to block access to something for all visitors regardless of region (not just limited to Australian visitors).
We broadly have two fairly obvious sets of international agreements that can get material taken down through most of the world. The first is child abuse material and the second is IP infringement.
IP law (as I understand it) relies on existing, bilateral agreements - it’s not a unilateral takedown demand from one side because we already agreed beforehand that we’d all have some shared ground in that area. CSAM law I’m less familiar with, but I assume at the very least that relevant laws in most countries are similar enough that what’s illegal for an Australian entity to host would also be illegal for, say, a Canadian entity to host. Maybe there’s also bilateral agreements in place on top of that similar to IP law – again, I’m less familiar with that.
I’m not aware of a parallel for either of these two aspects for the current situation, so I don’t really agree with it being a strawman. I don’t want it to just be a “China bad” thing so instead of saying China / Iran, let’s think about it with friendlier countries. If Canada gets a new government with a small authoritarian streak and they demand a takedown of something from an Australian host using a Canadian law which has no parallel in Australia, isn’t that comparable to what’s going on right now? A country issuing a global takedown just to satisfy their own domestic laws, even when there’s no legal requirement for it within the host country?
I think we could have an argument that on the scale of stuff that should be censored to stuff that shouldn’t, protecting adult victims of violent crime seems like it should fall somewhere between child abuse and IP rights.
I agree with this (and the article) that there’s going to need to be some thinking about where we want our (Australian) laws to handle these situations, but I’m also pretty uncomfortable with global enforcement of domestic laws until we come to agreements with other countries about it (ala IP law). Why was a geo-block considered insufficient? It seems to be enough to satisfy IP law (e.g.) - why not here?
I think we are more or less on the same page within the bandwidth limits of online conversation.
Australian courts can’t enforce their orders directly outside Australia. That is just a fact so there is no point even entertaining it except to incite a mob that doesn’t know better.
The only way such things happen is through international agreements. IP and CSAM are just about universal. I don’t think many services would refuse to take down revenge porn so that is something else that doesn’t seem controversial.
Musk seems intent on turning his plaything into 4chan. Any normal large media company would likely have complied without the tantrums. Anything to get attention I guess.
We might be a bit ahead of the curve with respecting adult victims of crime. Not always a bad thing. We were ahead on tobacco packaging, plastic money, HPV vaccines and other things. The US still can’t adult when it comes to sensible gun regulation. I don’t think we should apologize for trying. This is the rule of law in a moderately functional liberal democracy and couldn’t be further from authoritarianism. It is an overreach for sure but Musk has been aiming for Mars for years.
If its illegal to share in Australia and happened in Australia, then I can see ho legally there is a distinction. However, the same would be true of Tiananmen square.
One government should not have control outside its borders. The USA has already eroded this with their attempt to get Assange. This is just a natural extension of that.
Government control ends at our borders. So does other countries.
Speaking as a filthy American from an even filthier America, do we not have those annoying-as-hell cookie management popups now, all thanks to the EU?
Fun. Fact: musk hit github with a DMCA takedown.
