eSafety drops Federal Court action against X, Commissioner claims deaths threats made

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant says she and her family have been subjected to personal abuse and online threats over her decision to take legal action against Elon Musk’s X social media platform.

The internet watchdog has dropped its Federal Court action against X Corp over its refusal to remove from its international platform graphic footage of a Sydney church stabbing.

But in a sadistic irony, the person whose task it is to help protect Australians from online attacks has herself become the target of such abuse.

“Today I have decided to consolidate action concerning my Class 1 removal notice to X Corp in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal,” Ms Inman Grant said in a statement on Wednesday (5 June).

“After weighing multiple considerations, including litigation across multiple cases, I have considered this option likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children.

“As a result, I have decided to discontinue the proceedings in the Federal Court against X Corp in relation to the matter of extreme violent material depicting the real-life graphic stabbing of a religious leader at Wakeley in Sydney on 15 April 2024.

“Our sole goal and focus in issuing our removal notice was to prevent this extremely violent footage from going viral, potentially inciting further violence and inflicting more harm on the Australian community. I stand by my investigators and the decisions eSafety made.

“Most Australians accept this kind of graphic material should not be on broadcast television, which begs an obvious question of why it should be allowed to be distributed freely and accessible online 24/7 to anyone, including children.

“Indeed, a key issue of concern for me throughout this process was the ease by which children were able to access this extremely violent stabbing video on X.”

In a subsequent television interview, the Commissioner said her children had become a target because of the legal action she was taking.

She said while other social media platforms had complied with the request to remove footage of the stabbing, Musk initiated a “pile on” from X’s followers that exposed personal information about her children being put online.

“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,” Ms Inman Grant told ABC.

“I think with great power comes great responsibility. Targeting a regulator who is here to protect the citizens of Australia is really beyond the pale, but it’s not surprising.”

Doxxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual (or organisation) via the Internet without their consent and often with malicious intent.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland made a statement in parliament backing the Commissioner’s decision to drop the legal action and condemning the threats against her.

“The government backs our regulators, and we back the e-Safety Commissioner, particularly in light of the possible threats to her physical safety and the threats to her family in the course of doing her job,” the Minister said.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton also rose in the chamber to condemn the online abuse.

Describing Ms Inman Grant as “one of the finest public servants”, Mr Dutton urged an investigation into the abuse.

“The treatment and personal abuse and attacks that she has been subject to, threats and intimidation, should be absolutely condemned,” he said.

“I hope the AFP, as I’m sure they will, will continue to pursue those people who have made these outrageous attacks on her.”

The Global Government Affairs team from X issued an online statement celebrating the case being dropped by eSafety.

“We welcome the news that the eSafety Commissioner is no longer pursuing legal action against X seeking the global removal of content that does not violate X’s rules,” X’s statement said.

“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.”