The court's order came after it was approached by the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant on Monday evening.
The commission has no details about the court action on its website. iTWire has written to an eSafety media adviser seeking details.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese labelled X owner Elon Musk as arrogant. He told Seven's Sunrise program on Tuesday: "Well, this guy is showing his arrogance.
|
|
“It’s something that will add to social division. The eSafety commissioner has made a ruling, and the other social media platforms all complied without complaint.
“This is a measure that has bipartisan support in this country. Australians are united.
“This isn’t about censorship, it’s about common sense and common decency and Elon Musk should show some.”
“By and large, people responded appropriately to the calls by the eSafety commissioner.
“X chose not to ... I find it extraordinary that X chose not to comply and are trying to argue their case.”
Musk responded to the order by saying: "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?
"We have already censored the content in question for Australia, pending legal appeal, and it is stored only on servers in the USA."
X user Ana Mostarac wrote: "The problem that you’ve got here with this eSafety Commissioner, she’s an activist.
"She will continue to expand her role to police the Internet, to censor debate in a way that’s consistent with her own ideological views.
"You have these unelected bureaucrats that have vague powers and they will fill it with their views and she has their track record of censorship and it only ever targets one side.”
Musk made his initial opposition to the eSafety demand clear on Saturday. On Monday, he was criticised by the Greens communications spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young, who described him as "a narcissistic cowboy".
Update: At 10.11am, an eSafety media adviser sent the following statement to iTWire, attributing it to an eSafety spokesperson:
"The Federal Court today granted an interim injunction compelling X Corp to hide Class 1 material on X that was the subject of eSafety’s removal notice of 16 April, 2024.
"In summary, the notice required X Corp to take all reasonable steps to ensure the removal of the extreme violent video content of the alleged terrorist act at Wakeley in Sydney on 15 April from specific URLS on X.
"To be clear, the removal notice does not relate to commentary, public debate or other posts about this event. It only concerns the video of the violent stabbing attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.
"Following Monday’s events, eSafety worked co-operatively with other companies, including Google, Microsoft, Snap and Tik Tok, to remove the same material.
"Some of these companies have taken additional, proactive steps to reduce further spread of the material. We thank them for those efforts.
"However, eSafety determined last Tuesday that Meta and X Corp were not taking adequate steps to protect Australians from this material. Consequently, eSafety issued Class 1 notices to both companies, formally seeking removal of this material from their platforms.
"In the case of Meta, eSafety was satisfied with its compliance.
"In the case of X Corp, eSafety was not satisfied the actions it took constituted compliance and sought this injunction from the federal court. The court granted an interim injunction until 5pm AEST on Wednesday, 24 April, to allow time for a second hearing to take place at the discretion of the court."
