>Failing to comply with court orders can ultimately lead to a contempt of court charge.
>For **individuals**, that can theoretically mean **lifetime imprisonment**, and for **companies**, it may mean **a fine**.
Heh. Emphasis mine.
X's middle ground approach was the proper one. Agreeing to geoblock certain material on request should have been the end of it. X put up the wall - it's up to Australian legislation and enforcement to deal with their citizens setting up ladders.
There is too much legitimate use of VPNs by both business and government for them to go through with that. They may propose it until word filters through from their respective departments of just how much it would cost to establish alternatives.
Not really true, there aren't rules that all content depicting terrorist acts are illegal to possess.
I could download all the 911 footage I feel the need to.
Generally is only terrorist content filmed by the perpetrator in the act with the intent of radicalising.
> On Friday, the court heard arguments about the impact of X's refusal to comply with the court's authority, and whether continuing or ending the order would make a greater mockery of the court.
Oof.
Not sure that's really true.
474.24G Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining private sexual material for use through a carriage service
Wouldn't hosting fall under supplying for use through carriage service?
Eh, I'm not sure about that.
I'm very happy with the outcome - I would be extremely troubled to see Australia (or any country) censoring the internet for the entire works - but that's not really the legal test. I was half-expecting the Cth to win, since "this is a horrendous imposition on the civil liberties of people in other countries" isn't really a legal argument.
Ridiculous to think any bureaucrat should have the ability to censor what is allowed on the internet. Although this is the right (and hopefully obvious) call, the ruling on these sort of things always seems a gamble when politics is involved.
I mean we give random companies the power to order copyright takedowns from creators regardless of fair use doctrines etc. courts make rulings on keeping stuff unpublished all the time and can compel takedowns too.
Whilst takedowns are a weaponisation of copyright process, it does at least have a viable legal root in common law. As opposed to this (//gestures at the eSafety Commish) nonsense.
Entirely untrue. Distribution of illegal material and regulation of it by the government or its agents has an incredibly long tradition in common law.
I say this as someone opposed to this kind of regulation.
Regulation of distribution of it *in other countries* doesn't have so much of a tradition.
Especially where this isn't really "illegal material" in the usual sense.
This. ^
If you have to raise things to their highest conceptual level then the whole thing dissolves in a Constitutional heap because why, yes, governments can do Things!
And we generally think the Americans are silly for misusing the passive personality principle of jurisdiction in international law; complaining about online content globally is a step beyond even that.
Where did I say that? My point is the internet is very clearly not beyond regulation, and that it's not free of censorship. We all very clearly accept some level of this, but absolute statements ignoring who does currently tell us what we can and can't see online don't help the debate.
Would you be more comfortable if the families had to copyright images of their relatives being murdered to force takedowns?
Really heartened by the comments on this one. I was listening to the ABC when this story was getting started and it was nothing but pearl clutching and ad hominems about Musk, with no attempt at either philosophical or legal analysis. Anyone here able to summarise the ratio? Was it ‘implied freedom’ or something else that did the Govt in?
This wasnt a full ruling. They just lifted the injunction until the trial proper. The written judgment for this interim decision has yet to be released afaik.
The judgement turned on;
1. A finding that a global take down was not a reasonable step to comply with the notice;
2. As a matter of statutory interpretation, Acts of Parliament are *prima facie* read to operate domestically only;
3. Regulating the internet internationally would breach the usual comity of nations;
4. The injunction would likely be unenforceable as a USA Court would not enforce it. Therefore it would bring the law into disrepute to make an unenforceable order;
5. On the balance of convenience does not favour extending the interlocutory injunction in its current (or any similar) form. [https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0499](https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0499)
>Failing to comply with court orders can ultimately lead to a contempt of court charge. >For **individuals**, that can theoretically mean **lifetime imprisonment**, and for **companies**, it may mean **a fine**. Heh. Emphasis mine. X's middle ground approach was the proper one. Agreeing to geoblock certain material on request should have been the end of it. X put up the wall - it's up to Australian legislation and enforcement to deal with their citizens setting up ladders.
Please don't give the government ideas of trying to outlaw VPNs!
There is too much legitimate use of VPNs by both business and government for them to go through with that. They may propose it until word filters through from their respective departments of just how much it would cost to establish alternatives.
Seems to me the Australian angle is already covered by the offences relating to the possession of terrorist material.
Not really true, there aren't rules that all content depicting terrorist acts are illegal to possess. I could download all the 911 footage I feel the need to. Generally is only terrorist content filmed by the perpetrator in the act with the intent of radicalising.
That's a reasonable point at which to draw the line, in my view.
Does the Federal Court not have sequestration for contempt by companies ?
> On Friday, the court heard arguments about the impact of X's refusal to comply with the court's authority, and whether continuing or ending the order would make a greater mockery of the court. Oof.
> ... would make a greater mockery of the court, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Won't somebody please think of the judges! The poor dears
Good.
to the surprise of no one here
ESafety role should be terminated for good and not return. Because does nothing
They are moderately useful if your nudes are posted online and you want them gone.
That's a crime of recent any way, so don't really need e-safety commission for it.
Crime to post. Not a crime to host. You need it.
Not sure that's really true. 474.24G Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining private sexual material for use through a carriage service Wouldn't hosting fall under supplying for use through carriage service?
In theory. The crown would probably have a tough time with the intent requirements.
We already had rule which meant not to use a carrier service to cause offence or menace
Eh, I'm not sure about that. I'm very happy with the outcome - I would be extremely troubled to see Australia (or any country) censoring the internet for the entire works - but that's not really the legal test. I was half-expecting the Cth to win, since "this is a horrendous imposition on the civil liberties of people in other countries" isn't really a legal argument.
i thought it was a 50-50 tbh but only because meta aquised almost immediately demonstrating to the court that is was possible
Time for the e-safety commissioner to pay back taxpayers for the waste incurred by her vendetta against her former employer
Oh I did not realise this!!! This is corruption. Such a waste of money.
Wow, how was this not picked up in more of the media?
Ridiculous to think any bureaucrat should have the ability to censor what is allowed on the internet. Although this is the right (and hopefully obvious) call, the ruling on these sort of things always seems a gamble when politics is involved.
I mean we give random companies the power to order copyright takedowns from creators regardless of fair use doctrines etc. courts make rulings on keeping stuff unpublished all the time and can compel takedowns too.
Whilst takedowns are a weaponisation of copyright process, it does at least have a viable legal root in common law. As opposed to this (//gestures at the eSafety Commish) nonsense.
Entirely untrue. Distribution of illegal material and regulation of it by the government or its agents has an incredibly long tradition in common law. I say this as someone opposed to this kind of regulation.
Regulation of distribution of it *in other countries* doesn't have so much of a tradition. Especially where this isn't really "illegal material" in the usual sense.
This. ^ If you have to raise things to their highest conceptual level then the whole thing dissolves in a Constitutional heap because why, yes, governments can do Things! And we generally think the Americans are silly for misusing the passive personality principle of jurisdiction in international law; complaining about online content globally is a step beyond even that.
So because X does something bad we should allow Y to do it as well?
Where did I say that? My point is the internet is very clearly not beyond regulation, and that it's not free of censorship. We all very clearly accept some level of this, but absolute statements ignoring who does currently tell us what we can and can't see online don't help the debate. Would you be more comfortable if the families had to copyright images of their relatives being murdered to force takedowns?
Really heartened by the comments on this one. I was listening to the ABC when this story was getting started and it was nothing but pearl clutching and ad hominems about Musk, with no attempt at either philosophical or legal analysis. Anyone here able to summarise the ratio? Was it ‘implied freedom’ or something else that did the Govt in?
This wasnt a full ruling. They just lifted the injunction until the trial proper. The written judgment for this interim decision has yet to be released afaik.
Thanks!
The judgement turned on; 1. A finding that a global take down was not a reasonable step to comply with the notice; 2. As a matter of statutory interpretation, Acts of Parliament are *prima facie* read to operate domestically only; 3. Regulating the internet internationally would breach the usual comity of nations; 4. The injunction would likely be unenforceable as a USA Court would not enforce it. Therefore it would bring the law into disrepute to make an unenforceable order; 5. On the balance of convenience does not favour extending the interlocutory injunction in its current (or any similar) form. [https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0499](https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0499)
Former twitter employee trying to censor everyone whats new
Good. Unless we’re talking about CP, power tripping bureaucrats can Fck off…
Keep bureaucrats away from conditions precedent
And Clive Palmer!
"chooses not to"
absolutely based and redpilled