国产诱惑福利

Australian Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett said he would publish his reasons for imposing and lifting the order later.

The decision was a win for the company rebranded by billionaire Elon Musk when he bought ast year. X was alone among social media platforms in refusing to remove video of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel being stabbed. Musk has argued that he is standing up for a freedom of speech principle. Australian lawmakers have accused him of arrogance and of lacking a sense of social responsibility.

鈥淣ot trying to win anything. I just don鈥檛 think we should be suppressing Australian鈥檚 rights to free speech," Musk posted on X after the ruling.

X is also taking a separate court action against eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, that challenges the validity of her notice requiring the platform to remove video of the April 15 attack in an Assyrian Orthodox church. The judge is expected to consider setting a hearing date Wednesday.

Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones said the government might consider changing Australian law after reading Kennett鈥檚 reasons for removing his order that required X to hide the video from users. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a fundamental principle at stake and that is, if you鈥檙e a company or anybody operating in Australia, then you鈥檝e got to abide by Australian laws,鈥� Jones said.

He also said the government supported Inman Grant鈥檚 stance on the video. "She made the right decision in our view to ensure that that dangerous, violent, harmful material wasn鈥檛 being propagated online and encouraging and inciting that sort of behavior here in Australia,鈥� Jones said.

A 16-year-old boy was charged with in the stabbings of the bishop and a priest who were injured in the attack.

X has geoblocked Australian users from the content, but eSafety wants a worldwide ban on the video, which can be still accessed from Australia through VPNs.

An eSafety lawyer, Tim Begbie, described X in court last week as a 鈥渕arket leader in proliferating and distributing violent content and violent and extremist material.鈥�

Begbie said Australia could not be expected to conform to X鈥檚 鈥減ro-free speech stance.鈥�

鈥淭he fact is that that stance is in large measure illusory. Because X doesn鈥檛 stand for 鈥榞lobal removal is bad鈥� in some pure sense,鈥� Begbie said.

X鈥檚 own policies repeatedly refer to circumstances in which the platform will elect to remove content globally, Begbie said.

鈥淭he real position is this: X says that 鈥榬easonable鈥� means what X wants it to mean,鈥� Begbie said.

鈥淕lobal removal is reasonable when X does it because X wants to do it. But it becomes unreasonable when X is told to do it by the laws of Australia,鈥� Begbie added.

X lawyer Bret Walker said X had taken reasonable steps to block the content from Australia but there had been glitches.

He described eSafety鈥檚 demand for a global ban as astonishing and the notice as invalid.

鈥淵ou don鈥檛 expect to see statutes saying the Australian Parliament will regulate what concerning Australia 鈥� that is events in Australia 鈥� can be viewed in Russia, Finland, Belgium or the United States,鈥� Walker said.

鈥淣ot unless we want to become isolationist to a degree that is unthinkable,鈥� Walker added.