Elon Musk vs Australia's eSafety Commissioner | The Daily Aus

Elon Musk is legally challenging a demand by Australia's eSafety Commissioner. X was asked to take down videos of a stabbing in a Sydney church. Musk has said Australia's request threatens free speech globally.
On today's podcast, we’ll explain the controversy and why the ‘free speech’ argument might not hold up in an Australian court.
Subscribe ► bit.ly/3l6IFpt
Website ► thedailyaus.com.au
Instagram ► / thedailyaus
TikTok ► / thedailyaus
#thedailyaus #news #breakingnews #elonmusk #twitter #sydney #australia #stabbings

[@Rn-pp9et]

The stabbing is not alleged. What's alleged is the motivation behind the stabbing. I'm with X on this one.

[@leecoulson4224]

Me too. Don’t think an unelected bureaucrat should be deciding what we can view-especially when it’s freely available elsewhere

[@Rn-pp9et]

@@leecoulson4224 In addition to what you said, I'd like to also point out what I referenced. Had the footage not been made available people would think the stabbing was alleged based off this 'journalism' which I think is human error. It just highlights how we're gas lit by these paragons of truth and right think.

[@benjigray8690]

The term "alleged" is police speak. As an example; In a courtroom, a lawyer might say; Yes; your witness saw the policeman giving my client $100 It is "alleged" that the policeman was bribing my client, The policeman was paying him for mowing his lawn, That's a fact! he's a lawnmowing contractor! That's a fact!

[@Rn-pp9et]

@@benjigray8690 "The term "alleged" is police speak." It's actually lawyer jargon. Your example is just silly. Basically you have been accused of doing something, but it hasn't been proven yet. In the context of this video the stabbing is not alleged. The motivation behind the crime is alleged. Hence it's an alleged terrorist attack.

[@where_is_my_slippers]

That's exactly how it works, though.

[@jkkjeldsen8249]

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." --George Washington

[@nelsonrose355]

He is 1000% right, and no government should have the power to tell me what I can see

[@Zog696]

An Australian bureaucrat does not have the right to dictate what the world can think on the global internet. Many thanks for airing the issue.

[@deleted01]

There's a key difference between the US Constitution and the UN Convention on freedom of speech: The US Constitution does not recognize "hate speech" as a legal category. Speech that incites hate is still protected under the US Constitution. The example given in the video falls outside of the US free speech protection only because it would incite "imminent lawless action." The focus is on the action, not any particular thought, feeling, or belief. Therefore, by definition there exists a category of speech that is prohibited in Australia but protected in the US.

[@asea5130]

Thank you@deleted01!

[@Devils_Advocate_Extravalue]

Problem is with enough mental gymnastics and convincing.... anything can be deemed to fit into this category. Its whatever the gov't at the time finds to be abhorrent.

[@petrichor3947]

Love the work you are doing always go away feeling informed. So good to have this service hope you can get bigger if I win Tatts I’ll send you a few spare dollars. Thanks again and keep up what appears to be politically impartial reporting.😊

[@UnderworldQ]

Yeah, but they wanted to censor it in other countries and that’s not right

[@DJ99777]

Labor, Greens, Libs all on cloud cuckoo.

[@where_is_my_slippers]

First it starts with what we can and can't see, then its what we can and can't speak.

[@pkd6369]

bet ALBO BACKS down and finds a slush fund "otherword paid by taxpayers"

[@ChloeSwarprick-qn1rh]

Australia is looking more like China with each passing day. Musk has more than a couple of aces up his sleeve & australia could pay dearly for upsetting him

[@ReginaHickman-mw7cw]

A' 2ho died and made you boss 😂