The Australian online safety watchdog announced on Wednesday, June 5, that she had withdrawn her case from the Federal Court.
The case sought to compel X Corp. to remove a video depicting the stabbing of a Sydney bishop.
The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, declared her unwavering commitment to pursuing legal action against the platform through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
Elon Musk welcomed the decision, posting on X, “Freedom of speech is worth fighting for.”
A case initiated by X, running concurrently with a Federal Court case, was presented before the tribunal responsible for adjudicating bureaucrats’ administrative rulings.
Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, said cost was a factor in her decision to “consolidate” her commission’s legal action against X.
“The real questions that I want tested through an independent merits review will be done at the AAT and it didn’t make sense for me to be fighting a battle on two fronts when, let’s face it, the war is going to be much longer and more extended.”
Inman Grant
Grant disclosed that her legal action against X led to targeted online attacks against both herself and her family. This harassment included the malicious release of personal or identifying information without their consent, a practice referred to as “doxxing.”
She also blamed Musk for the attacks.
“He issued a dog whistle to 181 million users around the globe which resulted in death threats directed at me, which resulted in doxxing of my family members, including my three children.
“I think with great power comes great responsibility and exercising that restraint, in terms of targeting a regulator who is here to protect the citizens of Australia, is really beyond the pale. But it’s not surprising, given that we’ve seen him litigate and target and personally tarnish NGOs, academics, and other researchers that dare to criticize the safety of the X platform.”
Inman Grant
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland supported Inman Grant’s decision to take X to the Federal Court and her decision to drop the case.
“The government backs our regulators and we back the eSafety Commissioner, particularly in light of the reprehensible threats to her physical safety and the threats to her family in the course of doing her job.”
Michelle Rowland
X’s Refusal To Take Down Stabbing Video
X was alone among social media platforms in refusing eSafety’s order to take down the video of a 16-year-old stabbing an Assyrian Orthodox bishop in a Sydney church on April 15 as a service was being streamed online.
Microsoft, Google, Meta, Snap, TikTok, Reddit, and Telegram removed the video. However, X’s only intervention was geoblocking Australian X users.
However, the commission proceeded to the Australian Federal Court to enforce a global ban on the video being shared.
Musk, who used his personal X account, accused Australia of meddling with freedom of expression and targeted Inman Grant as the “Australian censorship commissar.”
In response, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese branded Musk as an “arrogant billionaire” out of touch with legal constraints and public sentiment.
However, the legal battle shifted on May 13 when Justice Geoffrey Kennett of the Federal Court overturned an injunction mandating a San Francisco-based company to globally suppress the content.
Kennett deemed the global ban an impractical demand on the platform, marking a setback for the Australian eSafety Commission’s initiatives.
“This case has raised important questions on how legal powers can be used to threaten global censorship of speech, and we are heartened to see that freedom of speech has prevailed,” X posted on Wednesday after the case was dropped.
But Inman Grant said her commission had another five legal cases against X, including over the platform’s failure to reveal how it was combating child sexual abuse material.
