Australia Banning Free Speech...

[seer]

This had to do with a Priest being stabbed during a livestream service. Of course the perp was a Muslim but no one in Australia wants to admit it because they are feckless panderers.

Elon Musk lashed out at Australia's prime minister on Tuesday after a court ordered his social media company X take down footage of an alleged terrorist attack in Sydney, and said the ruling meant any country could control "the entire internet".

At a hearing overnight, Australia's Federal Court ordered X, formerly called Twitter, to temporarily hide posts showing video of the incident a week earlier, in which a teenager was charged with terrorism for knifing an Assyrian priest and others.
X said it had already blocked the posts from Australian users, but Australia's e-Safety Commissioner had said the content should be taken down since it showed explicit violence.

"Does the PM think he should have jurisdiction over all of Earth?" Musk wrote in a post, referring to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...ch-2024-04-23/

[rogue06]

Australia has the right to block the video in their own country. If for no other reason than to prevent tainting the jury pool (assuming this would go before one). But to demand that it be taken down worldwide is at the best over reach.

[seer]

Australia has the right to block the video in their own country. If for no other reason than to prevent tainting the jury pool (assuming this would go before one). But to demand that it be taken down worldwide is at the best over reach.

Why do they have that right? Could they ban such an incident in the US, if it happened here? And the fact that they are trying to hide the fact that it was a Muslim.

[shunyadragon]

Australia has the right to block the video in their own country. If for no other reason than to prevent tainting the jury pool (assuming this would go before one). But to demand that it be taken down worldwide is at the best over reach.

. . . because of the nature of the access to the world internet cannot be controlled, blocking in Australis only is not an effective way to control access to the video. It could easily copied and distributed by other means.

I do not consider Musk and his mouth piece X has an admirable history. It is becoming a sensationalist rag on the internet replacing the yellow journalism rags on the News stand of the past.

[seer]

. . . because of the nature of the access to the world internet cannot be controlled, blocking in Australis only is not an effective way to control access to the video. It could easily copied and distributed by other means.

I do not consider Musk and his mouth piece X has an admirable history. It is becoming a sensationalist rag on the internet replacing the yellow journalism rags on the News stand of the past.

The point is, why does Australia have the right to ban free speech? Which they are attempting to do. Do you support banning speech Shuny?

[Ronson]

The point is, why does Australia have the right to ban free speech? Which they are attempting to do. Do you support banning speech Shuny?

It shouldn't be banning anything.

Does it have concerns about tainted jury pools? Sure. But the video will no doubt be shown during trial. It is all the accompanying commentary that it is really trying to silence, and Musk knows that.

[shunyadragon]

The point is, why does Australia have the right to ban free speech? Which they are attempting to do. Do you support banning speech Shuny?

This is NOT an effort to ban Free Speech. It is what rogue06 and I described.

In the modern history of journalism in print and on the internet have been subject to law suits, retractions, and bas without being called "bansofRee Speech.

There is nothing here tha Australia is making any new policy of banning free speech. This an other example oof your history of dishonest extreme trolling for your radical agenda.

[seer]

This is NOT an effort to ban Free Speech. It is what rogue06 and I described.

That is exactly what it is. By definition. You said: It could easily copied and distributed by other means. Why should they try and stop that?

[seer]

It shouldn't be banning anything.

Does it have concerns about tainted jury pools? Sure. But the video will no doubt be shown during trial. It is all the accompanying commentary that it is really trying to silence, and Musk knows that.

[shunyadragon]

That is exactly what it is. By definition. You said: It could easily copied and distributed by other means. Why should they try and stop that?

Reasons provided, Again . . .

In the modern history of journalism in print and on the internet have been subject to law suits, retractions, and bas without being called "bansofRee Speech.

There is nothing here tha Australia is making any new policy of banning free speech. This an other example oof your history of dishonest extreme trolling for your radical agenda.

[seer]

Reasons provided, Again . . .

In the modern history of journalism in print and on the internet have been subject to law suits, retractions, and bas without being called "bansofRee Speech.

There is nothing here tha Australia is making any new policy of banning free speech. This an other example oof your history of dishonest extreme trolling for your radical agenda.

What are you talking about? They are trying to ban a news story and the video (which was recorded in the church) from being shared and published. Why do they have the right to try and stop that story? Be specific.

[rogue06]

Why do they have that right?

Because countries have a right to pass laws in their own jurisdiction. You don't have to agree with them.

Could they ban such an incident in the US, if it happened here?

Yes. They can ban showing it in Australia.

And the fact that they are trying to hide the fact that it was a Muslim.

What else is new?

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about? They are trying to ban a news story and the video (which was recorded in the church) from being shared and published. Why do they have the right to try and stop that story? Be specific.

Reasons provided, Again . . .

In the modern history of journalism in print and on the internet have been subject to law suits, retractions, and bas without being called "bansofRee Speech.

There is nothing here tha Australia is making any new policy of banning free speech. This an other example oof your history of dishonest extreme trolling for your radical agenda.

[seer]

Because countries have a right to pass laws in their own jurisdiction. You don't have to agree with them.

Right, they can ban free speech - but let's call a spade a spade...

Yes. They can ban showing it in Australia.

Would you support such a ban in the US if it happened in the US?

What else is new?

I can't help believing that that is the real reason why they want the video banned.

[seer]

Reasons provided, Again . . .

In the modern history of journalism in print and on the internet have been subject to law suits, retractions, and bas without being called "bansofRee Speech.

OK, show me where a factual news story and video has been banned? And how that isn't a ban on free speech.

There is nothing here tha Australia is making any new policy of banning free speech. This an other example oof your history of dishonest extreme trolling for your radical agenda.

I agree that this isn't the first time Australia has banned free speech, but they have no right to ban it in other countries.