top of page

Australian court grants X a reprieve in case over removal of extreme content

A recent Australian court case has reignited debates over social media content regulation, free speech, and the effectiveness of geoblocking. The case centered on a social media platform, previously known as Twitter, and its refusal to remove violent posts depicting a stabbing incident in Sydney. 

The Incident and Legal Battle 

The case stemmed from a livestreamed attack on Assyrian Orthodox Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. The graphic video content, including around 65 clips, showed the non-fatal stabbing. Australia's eSafety Commissioner sought a global takedown of the violent posts. The social media platform, now under the ownership of Elon Musk, resisted this demand, citing free speech concerns. 

The Court's Decision and Free Speech Arguments 

Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett ruled against extending a temporary order that required the platform to remove the content globally. The reasoning behind the decision remains undisclosed. Musk, a vocal advocate for free speech, has previously encouraged users to leverage VPNs to circumvent censorship restrictions. 

Geoblocking and its Implications 

The platform, in an attempt at compromise, agreed to geoblock the content, making it inaccessible to users in Australia. However, the eSafety Commissioner argued that this measure was insufficient. Users with virtual private networks (VPNs) could still access the blocked content by masking their location. 

Geoblocking presents a complex issue with ramifications for both users and content providers. Users may face limitations in accessing content based on their geographical location. This can be frustrating, especially for those seeking information or services unavailable in their region. Additionally, geoblocking raises privacy concerns as users may resort to VPNs, potentially compromising their data security. 

For content providers, geoblocking offers a tool to comply with local regulations and licensing agreements. It allows them to control content distribution, creating exclusivity or regional variations in pricing and availability. However, geoblocking can also be seen as a form of censorship, hindering the free flow of information. It may also lead to discrimination against users from specific regions who are denied access to certain content. Furthermore, the effectiveness of geoblocking is challenged by VPNs, making enforcement a significant hurdle. 

The Case's Significance 

This court case serves as a significant test case for several reasons. It compels us to examine the legal responsibilities of social media platforms regarding content moderation. The case also highlights the limitations of geoblocking as a content regulation tool. Finally, it reignites the debate on balancing free speech with the need to regulate harmful content on social media platforms. 


The Australian court case sheds light on the complexities of regulating online content in today's digital age. Finding a solution that respects free speech while protecting users from harmful content remains a challenge. This case also emphasizes the role of VPNs in bypassing geo-restrictions and the ongoing discussion about online privacy and security.


Follow LexTalk World for more news and updates from International Legal Industry.




bottom of page