An Australian judge has lifted a ban on the social media platform X, allowing Australians to view a video of a bishop being stabbed in a Sydney church. The temporary ban, which was put in place on April 22, was rejected for extension by the Australian eSafety Commission. The court order expired on Monday, and Australian Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett made the decision to lift the ban.
X, which was rebranded by billionaire Elon Musk after he acquired Twitter, was the only social media platform that refused to remove the video of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being stabbed. Musk has defended this stance as a stand for freedom of speech, while Australian lawmakers have criticized him for arrogance and a lack of social responsibility.
Following the ruling, Musk posted on X stating, “Not trying to win anything. I just don’t think we should be suppressing Australian’s rights to free speech.” X is also involved in a separate court action challenging the validity of a notice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to remove the video of the April 15 attack in an Assyrian Orthodox church.
Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones mentioned that the government might consider changing Australian law after reading Justice Kennett’s reasons for lifting the ban. He expressed support for Inman Grant’s decision to remove the video to prevent the propagation of harmful material online.
The attack in the church resulted in a 16-year-old boy being charged with terrorism-related offenses for stabbing the bishop and a priest. X has geoblocked Australian users from accessing the content, but eSafety is pushing for a worldwide ban on the video.
An eSafety lawyer described X as a “market leader in proliferating and distributing violent content and extremist material.” The lawyer argued that X’s pro-free speech stance is illusory, as the platform has removed content globally in the past.
X’s lawyer defended the platform’s actions, stating that they had taken reasonable steps to block the content from Australia. The demand for a global ban was deemed astonishing and the notice invalid by X’s legal representation.
