Login
‘No suggestion’ X will keep stabbing video off platform, court told
The eSafety Commissioner told a court it is concerned the video of the violent stabbing at Wakeley could resurface on social media platform X if Elon Musk’s company is released from an interim injunction.
Naomi Neilson
Appearing in the Federal Court on Friday (10 May), Tim Begbie KC, counsel for the commissioner, said the interim injunction was the only thing stopping X from allowing its users to share the violent video of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being stabbed during a sermon.
Begbie said that not only did the video capture the moment the bishop was stabbed during the live-streamed sermon, but it also included the audio of the actual attack and people in the church screaming as it happened.
He said that because there has been “no apology … no suggestion X will change their position” on whether the video should remain online, it is safest to the Australian public that the interim injunction remains.
Friday was the final day the interim injunction applied.
Justice Geoffrey Kennett extended the existing injunction until Monday to give him time to make a final decision.
In his submissions, Begbie said the global removal notice was something that could have been done “very readily and easily by X” in the 48 hours after the stabbing video went online because it has “the technology and wherewithal” to take the necessary steps.
He added that to X’s credit, there are policies in place within Musk’s company that ensure harmful content can be globally removed.
“By that, I mean there would be obvious scope for X to remove the stabbing videos within its own policies, but [it] has chosen not to.
“The real position is X says reasonable [steps] means what X wants it to mean. Global removal is reasonable when X does it … but it becomes unreasonable when X is told to do it under the laws of Australia,” Begbie said in his lengthy submissions on Friday.
Begbie said even if the court was against the global removal point, the commission has several points at the ready for the final hearing.
On the global removal argument, Bret Walker, appearing for X, said it is a “matter of real concern and proper consideration of our legal system” for an order of an Australian court “requires or entails in places which Australia does not pretend to govern”.
Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, both United States-based non-profits with a focus on free speech, sought to intervene in the proceedings.
However, given the commissioner was yet to come to a position on whether it should be permitted to do so, the court stood it over and will decide whether it would be worth a short hearing.
The hearing could begin in early June.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
