Let me cut straight to the chase: the Online Safety Act and its recent skirmish with Elon Musk’s Twitter (or X, as it’s now called) is a perfect example of why Americans should stop assuming they understand Australia’s legal system. It’s not authoritarian, it’s not about censorship, and it’s not about silencing dissent. It’s about ensuring a safer internet for everyone, and it operates under a framework that’s both democratic and consultative.
The Online Safety Act, overseen by the eSafety Commissioner, is designed to provide a safer online environment by emphasizing “reasonable” steps to mitigate harm. This includes taking down content that poses a significant risk, like live-streamed terrorist attacks. Now, “reasonable” has a specific legal meaning here, and it’s not up for debate by Twitter’s armchair experts. It means taking steps that any rational person with access to all the information would consider necessary to prevent harm. This isn’t about feelings or being triggered; it’s about serious harm and public safety.
The recent spat with X revolves around the eSafety Commissioner issuing a blocking notice to take down footage of a terrorist attack. X complied but only blocked the content for Australian users, arguing that they don’t need to comply with Australian laws for content hosted overseas. The eSafety Commissioner contends that Australians can still access this content via VPNs, thus it should be removed globally. This raises an interesting jurisdictional question that might need to be settled in court.
But let’s get one thing straight: the Online Safety Act is not about censorship. It’s about protecting people from serious harm. It explicitly excludes content that merely causes distress, anger, or offense. It has a high threshold for what constitutes harm, requiring proof of intent and significant harm. And it has multiple exemptions for journalism, research, law enforcement, and activism.
Now, the Act is currently under review, with a public consultation process open until June. This is democracy in action. You can submit your thoughts, complaints, or suggestions. The process is transparent and consultative, involving industry bodies, public submissions, and legislative scrutiny. If you think the Act is flawed, you have multiple avenues to challenge it, from writing to your local MP to taking it to the High Court.
So, before you jump on Twitter to decry the Act as authoritarian, maybe take a moment to understand how it actually works. It’s designed to be a balanced, consultative, and democratic process aimed at making the internet safer for everyone. And if you have a problem with it, there are plenty of ways to have your voice heard beyond just tweeting about it.