Australia drops censorship fight threatening Musk’s X with $500K daily fine.
  • Ab_intra@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    6 months ago

    How is a stabbing video anything about freedom of speech? I often support Electronic Frontier Foundation but this makes no sense.

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.eeEnglish
      13·
      6 months ago

      Th issue was them wanting a global takedown, with the argument being that it could incite further violence and inspire instability

      • Ab_intra@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        6 months ago

        I kinda see the point of removing it globally… It’s a video that shows a stabbing. Why would you want that to circulate?

          • FiskFisk33@startrek.websiteEnglish
            9·
            6 months ago

            I agree (or rather, disagree) with both sides here. Australia should of course not be able to order global takedowns, but xitter should want to take it down anyways for their own reasons.

        • anyhow2503@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          6 months ago

          Try to imagine that argument but coming from some government you really dislike. I can think of a lot of different media that might inspire violence and instability, but which would be really important for people to see or at least know about. Frankly, anyone who doesn’t see that as a potential problem is being shortsighted and really needs some historical perspective, in my opinion.

        • Creat@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          4·
          6 months ago

          Yea imagine this was a video of soldiers of some state murdering people. Same argument. You still agree? Also a video of one (or more) stabbings.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      7·
      6 months ago

      If freedom of speech only applies to “acceptable” speech, then it isn’t really freedom of speech.

      • Donut@leminal.spaceEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        It never was. It’s freedom of speech without having to fear governmental penalties, broadly speaking. Several categories like incitement, false advertising and CSAM should not be acceptable “speech”.

        • Ajen@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          Several categories like incitement, false advertising and CSAM should not be acceptable “speech”.

          In those examples it’s not the speech that’s illegal, there’s a real crime that the speech is part of. False advertising is a form of fraud, but if there’s no fraud involved (satire, humor, education, etc) it’s legal.

  • antler@feddit.rocksEnglish
    13·
    6 months ago

    The ego of an Australian regulator that thought they could tell an American company what they could or could not distribute to non-Australians must be huge. (To clarify, twitter had blocked the video for Australians)

    I know the US has a reputation for thinking it’s laws apply everywhere but this is on a whole new level

    “option likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children.”