[Theme Music Starts]

SCOTT:

From Schwartz Media, filling in for Ashlynne McGhee, I’m Scott Mitchell. This is 7am.

When an Australian government agency applied for court orders on some of the world’s biggest tech companies at the beginning of the week, they probably didn’t realise it would put us on the frontline of a global battle over the internet.

The eSafety Commissioner was hoping to remove the kind of footage social media companies have agreed to remove in the past – but today things are very different, in large part because of Elon Musk.

Today, columnist for The Saturday Paper Paul Bongiorno, on why Elon Musk and his fans turned on Australia and how one Senator in particular, ended up in the firing line.

It’s Friday. April 26.

[Theme Music Ends]

SCOTT:

Paul. This week, Australian Senator Jacqui Lambie came to global attention and videos of her went around the world and were viewed by millions. What sparked this, Paul?

PAUL:

Well, what did spark it?

Audio excerpt — Patricia Karvelas:

“Jacqui Lambie. Should Elon Musk be able-allowed to publish this video, of this alleged stabbing of a bishop in western Sydney? He says that it's about free speech, is it?”

Audio excerpt — Senator Jacqui Lambie:

“No. Elon Musk has no social conscience or conscience whatsoever.”

PAUL:

She went on ABC radio and absolutely slammed tech billionaire Elon Musk, saying he should be arrested and thrown in an Australian jail for his social media platform, Twitter, or as Musk calls it, X.com, for it flagrantly disregarding Australian law.

Audio excerpt — Senator Jacqui Lambie:

“Quite frankly, the power that that man has because of that platform that he's on, it's got to stop. It has absolutely got to stop. But leaving that out for our kids to see, for people that, with family and friends, out there and just letting that run on there once again, that bloke has no conscience. He's an absolute frigging disgrace. And there's nothing else to say about Elon Musk.”

PAUL:

The clip of Lambie quickly went around the world with Musk supporters and other right wing commentators in America and elsewhere slamming Lambie.

Audio excerpt — Alex Jones:

“Australian senator wants Elon Musk locked up for allowing free speech on X. Jaku Lamble (sic) quote: ‘Elon Musk has no social conscience or conscience whatsoever.’ Oh yeah.”

PAUL:

…saying she was supporting censorship and arguing she should be the one thrown in jail.

Audio excerpt — Alex Jones:

“And you know what, I don't normally do things four times, but just because the censorship tsar looks like a little pig or something. Little demon pig. ‘It's disgusting. I want to arrest Elon Musk right now’. Let’s play it one more time…”

PAUL:

Well, eventually all this caught the attention of Elon Musk himself, who replied to several people who were sharing the clip. In one post, he said that Lambie was, quote, “an enemy of the Australian people”. He also said The Australian people want the truth and X is the only one standing up for their rights.

But Scott, this singling out of Lambie conveniently misses the point that actually this is not just one senator criticising Elon Musk and X.com. In fact, leaders from all the major parties in Australia are all of the belief that Musk has gone too far and we have to respond. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called Musk an arrogant billionaire who thinks he's above the law.

Audio excerpt — Prime Minister Anthony Albanese:

“This bloke thinks he’s above everyone. Well, that’s not the way that Australia operates.”

PAUL:

While Home Affairs Minister Claire O'Neil said Musk's platform and other social media companies were doing, quote, “untold damage, creating vast problems in mental health and spreading terrible attitudes around the world”. And even Peter Dutton said the opposition would work with the government on any new laws they might bring forward, highlighting how social media could stymie police investigations and had been used to spread child abuse material.

SCOTT:

So Paul, everyone wants Musk to take this footage down – but what exactly spurred the Australian government to issue this takedown notice in the first place?

PAUL:

Well, Scott, on Monday, Australia's eSafety Commissioner, which regulates the internet in Australia, issued takedown notices to several social media companies over videos and images of the stabbing attack at a western Sydney church last week. There was concern that imagery was being used in bad faith and could inspire reprisal attacks, copycats or deeper divisions in the community.

Audio excerpt — Prime Minister Anthony Albanese:

“This is a bloke who's chosen ego and showing violence over common sense. I think that Australians will shake their head when they think that this billionaire is prepared to go to court, fighting for the right to sow division and to show violent videos, which are very distressing.”

PAUL:

But Musk said X.com wouldn't completely comply with the orders. He said Australia had no jurisdiction to order them and threatened free speech for a global audience. He accused Australia's eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, of wanting authority over all countries on Earth, and called her the commissar.

Audio excerpt — Prime Minister Anthony Albanese:

“We have sent a clear message across the board. Politicians in Australia, across the political spectrum, are backing the eSafety Commissioner. And they're backing the eSafety Commissioner because she's acting in the interests of common sense and in the interests of common decency.”

PAUL:

Musk's thumbing his nose at Australian laws, was not joined by other platforms like Facebook. But it certainly throws up the limits of a sovereign government in the borderless world of the internet. It's a problem for all democracies, but look, there's no guarantee they could all come to an agreement on how to deal with it.

SCOTT:

So, Paul, as it stands now, how exactly does the law around these takedown orders work? And can our eSafety Commissioner really do anything if Musk simply refuses to comply?

PAUL:

Well, under the Online Safety Act, which is the law we have for this in Australia, the eSafety Commissioner must identify specific videos that it has assessed as being a threat to safety. Then it has to go to the federal court with a request to issue those orders. And on Monday, the federal court heard the eSafety Commissioner's arguments, as well as the arguments of a lawyer representing X.com and the judge, after weighing the free speech implications and the threat to safety, decided that, on balance, that takedown orders were appropriate. Now, these orders were issued on a number of tech giants, including Meta and Google, both of whom complied and worked with the commissioner. But X.com, as we have to keep, say, has not complied. And that means the eSafety Commissioner has to go back to federal court to force a sanction on Musk's platform of up to $782,500 for every day that the platform doesn't comply. But we're yet to see whether that kind of sanction is enough to force Musk to back down, or whether he'll even comply with the order and pay it.

This is shaping as a watershed moment, especially as Musk doesn't appear to care whether he has a social license for his stand. But it has to be said he's not without political support in Australia or the United States. The Freedom Warriors on the right of politics, like Pauline Hanson or the UAP’s Ralph Babet, man, some of the Liberal and National backbench have already served notice that they see any further tightening of laws as a threat to our democracy. It's a headache for Albanese, but it sure is a bigger one for Peter Dutton.

SCOTT:

After the break, are our laws governing the internet up to scratch? And can we trust politicians in Canberra to fix them?

[Advertisement]

SCOTT:

Paul, this conflict we've been talking about between Elon Musk and the Australian government looks like it's only set to keep escalating. But how exactly is the Albanese government able to respond to a global figure like Musk?

PAUL:

Scott. Much will depend on how far Musk is willing to push it. At the extreme end, Australia could ban X.com completely, though this seems unlikely and would put us in the same company as China. Oh, you know, it would also not get around people employing VPNs.

Audio excerpt — Host ABC RN Drive:

“Under the draft legislation, the Australian Communications and Media Authority could impose millions of dollars in penalties on platforms breaching misinformation and disinformation standards. Joining me on RN Drive is the communications minister Michelle Rowland – welcome to you.”

Audio excerpt — MP Michelle Rowland:

“Good afternoon.”

PAUL:

The Albanese government has been promising to broaden the laws for digital media since June last year.

Audio excerpt — MP Michelle Rowland:

“So there will be nothing in that graduated set of powers that enables the regulator to look at individual pieces of content, or to otherwise order removal of content. So in a nutshell, it is holding the platforms to account for the measures they say they will already take in relation to stopping the spread of harmful mis and disinformation.”

PAUL:

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland released what she called an exposure draft of her mis and disinformation bill, and which stirred a firestorm across the board.

Audio excerpt — MP Russell Broadbent:

“Deputy Speaker. I can't believe that the government of the day on this misinformation disinformation bill will not allow the Australian people to think for themselves.”

PAUL:

…with the opposition launching a bin the bill online petition.

Audio excerpt — MP Russell Broadbent:

“People have sorted through what is misinformation and disinformation. Some that proved to be absolutely correct. There was claimed to be misinformation, and it wasn't. It happened to be truth. And any scholar like those members sitting opposite are, would know that that is the case in history.”

PAUL:

But Peter Dutton and his shadow minister, David Coleman, sensing a dramatic public mood shift following the Bondi knife massacre and the stabbing of the bishop. Well, they've seemed to have softened their opposition, and Michelle Rowland says that she'll reopen consultations and we may see a new exposure draft or even legislation before long. But Scott, the same politicians who rejected the original proposals, have served notice. They’re still implacably opposed to stifling what they call free speech and communication. Now, whether this would become a full blown revolt for the coalition, well, that's an open question.

SCOTT:

Interesting Paul. I guess there is a real challenge here, though, because whatever you think of Musk and his views, there is sort of a reasonable point here about whether any single country's laws should or could govern an international audience and what they can access. Can Australia really make progress on this on our own?

PAUL:

Oh, well, Australia can refine and broaden laws that apply here, but whether they end up being toothless tigers is the question. Albanese knows other nations will be looking closely at this latest fight with Musk. But the United States and the United Kingdom have talked about new laws governing content. Single countries mightn't be able to decide what can and can't be on social media with global reach. But an international shift in what is expected from these giants could force them to act more reasonably. We can only live in hope even if we can't hold our breath. Julie Inman Grant’s eSafety Commission, well, it now finds itself on the front line of a very important fight.

SCOTT:

And so, Paul, finally, all Australians really have a stake in how this shakes out. Whether you're concerned about the safety of children, worried about free speech, access to good, trustworthy information. What are the challenges for the government to strike the right balance here and get a good result? Because we've seen governments in the past struggle to regulate the internet?

PAUL:

Well, free speech can never be an absolute right. There are constraints that go to truth, safety, and respect. The Prime Minister is surely correct when he says this isn't about freedom of expression. This is about the dangerous implications that can occur when things that are simply not true, are replicated and weaponised in order to cause division and harm. I think if Albanese pushes that line, he will garner enormous public support.

SCOTT:

Paul, thanks so much for your time. It's so good to chat to you.

PAUL:

Thank you Scott. Bye.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

SCOTT:

Also in the news today

NSW police confirmed yesterday five teenagers have been charged after counter-terrorism raids in Sydney on Wednesday, and they will appear in court.

The raids were directed at known associates of the young man alleged to have stabbed Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.

And, it’s been revealed that the United States delivered long-range missiles to Ukraine earlier this month, despite the Biden administration previously refusing to send the missiles, which could be fired much deeper into Russian territory.

7am is a daily show from Schwartz Media and The Saturday Paper.

It’s produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon, Cheyne Anderson and Zoltan Fesco.

Our senior producer is Chris Dengate. Our technical producer is Atticus Bastow. Our host is Ashlynne McGhee.

Sarah McVeigh is our head of audio. Erik Jensen is our editor-in-chief.

Mixing by Andy Elston, Travis Evans and Atticus Bastow.

Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope Audio.

And our editor is me, Scott Mitchell.

Thanks so much for listening and we’ll see you next week.

[Theme Music Ends]