0:02

From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald

0:04

and The Age, this is inside politics.

0:07

I'm Rachel Clun. It's Friday, April

0:10

26th. A

0:12

video of a violent attack on a

0:14

Sydney bishop has sparked an international

0:17

fight over free speech, censorship

0:19

and the potential threats such videos

0:21

could pose when spread on social media.

0:24

US billionaire Elon Musk's social

0:27

media platform X was ordered

0:29

by Australia's Esafety commissioner,

0:31

Julie Inman Grant, to take

0:33

down some copies of the clip amid

0:36

fears it could be used to radicalise

0:38

more people. Musk has

0:40

been fighting the takedown, drawing

0:42

criticism from politicians across

0:44

the spectrum, including from Prime

0:46

Minister Anthony Albanese.

0:48

This is an egotist.

0:51

He is someone who's

0:53

totally out of touch with

0:56

the values that Australian families

0:58

have, and this is causing

1:01

great distress. I think it is causing

1:03

damage to his own brand

1:05

of Twitter, which has now become

1:08

X.

1:09

The fight, which has now entered the

1:11

courts, has reignited a broader

1:13

discussion about the dangers of social media.

1:16

The coalition wants young children

1:18

blocked from social media to protect them

1:20

from harmful content, while the country's

1:23

top policing and spy agencies

1:25

have vowed to protect children from extremist

1:27

poison and called on platforms

1:29

to do better. So

1:32

what are the arguments for taking down

1:34

the video and also for keeping it up?

1:37

And what are the broader risks of easy

1:39

access to violent, extreme

1:41

or otherwise harmful content to younger

1:44

people? Today, political

1:46

correspondent Paul Sichel and chief political

1:48

correspondent David Crowe join me to

1:50

discuss. Welcome,

1:58

gentlemen. Good morning.

1:59

Rachel. Hi, Paul. Hello, Rachel

2:01

and David.

2:02

So, nearly a fortnight ago, video emerged

2:04

of an alleged teenage terrorist striking

2:06

Bishop Murray Emanuel. And that was

2:09

streamed live. And clips of it have

2:11

spread on social media. This week,

2:13

the Esafety commissioner ordered X to hide

2:15

some of those videos. What happened

2:17

next, Paul?

2:18

What happened next was an almighty reaction

2:21

from the free speech warrior

2:23

Elon Musk in the US, whose

2:25

firm X has filed a case

2:27

in the Federal Court of

2:29

Australia suggesting that these orders

2:32

from the Australian regulator effectively amount

2:34

to a global takedown order. And their argument

2:36

in court is that they have

2:39

geo blocked these links, which the

2:41

safety commissioner wants taken down

2:43

is about 60 or 70 of them. So

2:45

they say that all people in Australia can no

2:47

longer view this video, which all of us have seen on

2:50

the news, or at least in blurred out versions.

2:52

The Esafety commissioner says that's not

2:54

a good enough response, and that's because

2:57

people with a VPN, which is a

2:59

kind of device you put on your computer to make

3:01

it appear as if you're in a different country. So those

3:03

people in Australia can still watch these videos.

3:06

The Esafety commissioner says that the

3:08

videos should be removed, even for those people,

3:10

because terrorist networks

3:12

and the AFP has made a submission to this effect.

3:14

Terrorist networks and radical radical

3:16

groups might use these videos to

3:18

over months or years fuel radicalisation

3:21

and foster extremism. They point to the

3:23

Christchurch video, which still gets found

3:25

in various extremist groups,

3:27

and this order from the Esafety commissioner to remove

3:30

these videos, even for people with VPNs,

3:32

has really riled Twitter or X,

3:34

because they say that this sets a terrible precedent

3:36

and effectively lets a single nation

3:39

dictate what people across the world

3:41

can see. Elon Musk tweeted earlier this week

3:43

saying should the Esafety commissar,

3:46

an unelected official in Australia, have authority

3:48

over all countries on earth and her

3:50

title is not the Commissar, it's the commissioner.

3:52

The commissar is a reference to a communist

3:55

censor.

3:55

Yeah. So Elon Musk has got strong

3:57

views about this, but so do plenty of politicians.

4:00

David, from across the spectrum, I guess they've

4:02

stepped into the fray from independent

4:04

senator Jacqui Lambie.

4:05

So when it comes to the tech billionaire, like I've already

4:07

said, I think he's a social media knob with no

4:09

social conscience all the way.

4:10

Up to the Prime minister. And

4:12

Musk has seemed very happy to hit back

4:15

at some of those critiques. Is

4:17

this just a political signing match? What is

4:19

the dispute really over?

4:21

There is a very high level war

4:23

of words and it is a political slanging match.

4:25

I think it's easy to attack

4:27

Elon Musk. He's not a very popular figure.

4:29

He's a billionaire in California. He's

4:32

sort of thumbing his nose at Australian authorities.

4:34

Jacqui Lambie says he should be in jail.

4:37

He says Jacqui Lambie is an enemy of

4:39

the people. It's a sort of a downward

4:41

spiral in, you know,

4:43

rhetorical attacks on either

4:45

side. Both Peter Dutton and

4:48

Anthony Albanese are critical of

4:50

where X and Musk stand

4:52

on this. But that, I think, highlights

4:54

what's really important, which is

4:56

it is fundamentally about Australian sovereignty

4:59

and a global company. What is

5:01

the reach of Australian law? If an elected

5:03

government in a democracy decides

5:06

this content can inflame

5:08

tensions, this is terrorist

5:10

content and should be removed. There's

5:12

a technical argument about whether

5:14

Australia can stop it being seen through

5:16

a virtual private network, as Paul's explained.

5:18

But there's also this philosophical argument

5:20

about the reach of the Australian law.

5:22

Ultimately, it's going to be for the court to decide.

5:25

And contrary to what Musk says

5:27

about unelected officials, this is an

5:29

appointed commissioner chosen

5:31

by an elected government who is seeking

5:33

to impose on a company what she

5:35

regards an important community standard

5:37

to ensure safety. He defies

5:40

all arguments about that. So it's a real

5:42

philosophical test here. I think you can

5:44

have a reasonable argument, like a

5:46

totally fair argument about whether the content

5:48

should be seen or not, but

5:50

I think the commissioner has

5:52

decided on various grounds.

5:55

And also bear in mind ASIO

5:57

and the AFP are involved. That

6:00

it shouldn't be spread. It's

6:02

for the court to decide. And I think the

6:04

big question is, does

6:06

this global company accept

6:08

the jurisdiction of an Australian

6:10

court, and will it abide with a decision

6:13

of an Australian court? Let's not

6:15

blame politicians here.

6:17

If the judge in the Federal Court

6:19

decides that something has to be removed,

6:21

the test will be whether a global

6:24

company can work with that.

6:25

So let's go to that court

6:27

battle. Now, Paul, can you step us through those

6:29

legal arguments about whether X and others have

6:31

to remove this violent video of

6:34

the alleged knife attack? Yeah.

6:35

The legal arguments are going to boil down to

6:38

this debate that we're having now about jurisdiction.

6:40

X is lawyer, a barrister, Australian barrister

6:42

called Marcus Coin, who, uh,

6:44

quite humorously said that these cases go

6:46

on a quote above his pay grade in the hearing

6:48

yesterday. And they're going to hire Brett Walker, who is one of

6:50

the most expensive and well known silks in Australia,

6:52

for the case on May 10th. When this comes back, he

6:54

said that the a safety commissioner has

6:57

a quote. Exorbitant view of its own jurisdiction,

6:59

and that there are very serious legal implications

7:02

in this case. And he thinks that a

7:04

hearing might have to go for 2 or 3,

7:06

potentially four days because of how complex it is.

7:08

And on the other side, Christopher Tran,

7:11

the barrister for the Esafety commissioner,

7:13

says that this is a crucial moment

7:15

in which a regulator needs to prove that it

7:17

can act in the interests of a sovereign state and

7:19

in the security interests of a sovereign state. To ensure

7:21

that a video like this can remain

7:24

offline and not be used for radicalisation.

7:26

An interesting element of the case, which is not

7:29

so much legalistic, but more in terms of the

7:31

PR acts, filed an

7:33

affidavit in the hearing from the bishop himself,

7:35

which I was told they got signed by the bishop

7:37

personally about 20 minutes before the hearing. They really

7:39

rushed to get him to sign it off because

7:41

it's a great, um, a great look for acts

7:44

that the bishop is saying that Anthony

7:46

Albanese and the Esafety commissioner are

7:48

wrong, and that the video should remain online. He doesn't

7:50

believe there's any legitimate reason to take

7:52

it down. That position does

7:54

kind of cohere with his political views. He's on

7:56

the right. He's he's quite a

7:58

firebrand conservative. And the other argument

8:00

that was interesting, I thought in the hearing it was

8:03

from the ex lawyer, again, Markus

8:05

Horn, who said this might be an example

8:07

of the Streisand effect, which is

8:09

where someone who is trying to diminish

8:11

the importance of an issue through

8:13

censoring it or trying to downplay it,

8:15

actually builds it up into something that never once

8:17

was.

8:18

There's a broader debate at the moment about social

8:20

media and its harms or dangers,

8:23

and the heads of ASIO and the Federal police said

8:25

this week that social media platforms

8:27

can and should do better to protect

8:29

vulnerable people from harm.

8:30

Some of our children and other vulnerable

8:32

people are being bewitched online

8:35

by a cauldron of extremist

8:37

poison on the open and dark web.

8:39

Paul, what do Mike Burgess and Reece Kershaw

8:42

want from platforms like Facebook

8:44

and X here? Yeah, this.

8:45

Was an interesting intervention. I think there's a confluence

8:48

of different news events that have come into

8:50

the picture over the last few weeks that have really elevated

8:52

this issue of social media harms.

8:54

Mike Burgess and Reece Kershaw from ASIO and the

8:56

AFP. They spoke at the National Press Club. They said

8:58

that the existing laws that exist

9:01

around encrypted apps, which

9:03

is private communications on things like WhatsApp

9:05

and signal another, and telegram,

9:07

where people talk, where extremist

9:09

groups congregate and talk about

9:11

their their plans. The existing

9:14

laws are not being upheld by the social

9:16

media platforms, because when

9:19

the AFP and ASIO work over

9:21

a period of months to get a warrant up

9:23

to actually look into these communications,

9:26

the social media platforms don't play ball

9:28

and take too long or they refuse

9:30

those requests.

9:31

Social media companies are refusing to

9:33

snuff out the social combustion

9:35

on their platforms. Instead

9:37

of putting out the embers that start

9:39

on their platforms, their indifference

9:42

and defiance is pouring

9:44

accelerant on the flames.

9:46

So they made this big plea to these

9:48

global tech platforms to say, you know, privacy

9:51

is not absolute. We need your help

9:53

here. You have a social licence to

9:55

operate in this country, and we need to have a look inside

9:57

your systems.

9:57

I think that's a really vexed question.

10:01

Um, a bit different to the terror video,

10:03

because it's about terrorism and sort of how

10:05

that may influence weak

10:07

minds, basically, and being attracted to

10:09

terrorism with the encryption argument,

10:12

it's really about the extent of

10:14

state power to get companies to

10:16

obey and to help them with

10:18

prosecutions or investigations.

10:20

And this comes up time

10:22

and again, where tech companies

10:25

don't really want to go as far

10:27

as the authorities would like. Years

10:29

ago, there was a celebrated case where

10:31

a terrorist in California had

10:34

an iPhone, and Apple

10:36

declined requests from

10:38

US authorities to break open

10:40

the encryption so they could see what

10:43

was happening on that phone. The intriguing

10:45

aspect of that is that the authorities

10:47

eventually were able to crack the phone

10:49

with the help of an Australian hacking company.

10:51

Again and again. Big tech

10:54

doesn't want to help. And you see

10:56

this sort of clash of different viewpoints.

10:59

And I don't think it's possible to really say that

11:02

tech companies should always obey, because

11:04

personal freedom is at stake here. The

11:06

liberty of a customers to know that

11:08

their encrypted information on a phone

11:11

is going to be safe.

11:13

Unless, of course, there is a very

11:15

solid legal reason for that to be obtained.

11:18

And that's what's happening here with the social

11:20

media platforms.

11:21

The coalition has also used this moment,

11:23

David, to say it's in favour of banning

11:26

young children from social media platforms,

11:28

and it's backed a proof of age requirement.

11:30

Talk us through this. And what's the government

11:32

response to that been?

11:34

It's really important, I think, and

11:36

it's going to be a very interesting debate

11:38

to watch because the

11:40

coalition has moved ahead of the government.

11:42

But I think it rises above

11:44

party politics. My column this week is

11:46

about a book called The Anxious Generation

11:48

by a social psychologist

11:51

called Jonathan Hart from New York. It's

11:53

a very provocative book because it's about what's

11:55

happening with youth mental

11:57

health. Since the arrival of the

11:59

smartphone and the

12:01

the surge in the use of these social media

12:04

apps. The data shows that there

12:06

is a problem with mental health among the young

12:08

over the past 1015 years.

12:11

There's a debate about what's caused it. However,

12:13

the data is so dire that

12:16

there's got to be some kind of response

12:18

from authorities. This is what elected governments

12:20

are meant to be about, acting on community

12:22

concerns. And I think there are a lot of parental concerns

12:25

about what's happening with kids and social

12:27

media. But here, it's not

12:29

a cut and dried kind of ideological

12:32

debate. The free speech champions

12:35

and the Anti-woke Crusaders like Elon

12:37

Musk. Well, it turns out that they're actually the

12:39

ones who may be peddling something that's

12:41

quite dangerous to young children. Where

12:43

do you stand on that? The Liberal

12:45

Party, the party of so

12:47

they say, small government are actually

12:50

the ones arguing for some kind of

12:52

intervention here in the form of

12:54

mandated age verification,

12:57

so young kids could not get on

12:59

to these social media platforms. I

13:01

find it really interesting that the response

13:03

this week from Michelle Rowland, the communications

13:05

minister, was not to say, yes, that's

13:07

a good idea, but she talked

13:09

around it, uncertain

13:11

about where the government was going to land on

13:14

this.

13:14

And Michelle Rowland has been pushing back against

13:16

the Esafety commissioner, who's been for more than a

13:18

year now, asking for age verification

13:20

for porn sites. Um,

13:23

Michelle Rowland has said publicly that the

13:26

tech around the world that's been used on

13:28

this, which exists in Europe, um,

13:30

is in its infancy, and we're not ready to

13:32

use that tech yet. Um, and

13:34

the safety Commission just flatly disagree. She

13:36

says the tech is ready. Um, and that the

13:38

government's been a bit soft on it is an interesting fight.

13:41

And Julie Inman Grant, who's the

13:43

Esafety commissioner, independent

13:45

agency of the federal government, has wanted

13:48

really a test, a trial of this.

13:50

So we're not even at the point where the policy

13:52

is to mandate it. It's simply a request

13:55

to have a trial to see how it could work.

13:57

And I find often in these technology

13:59

debates, which I've covered for a couple of

14:01

decades now. The

14:04

technical quibbles become a

14:06

reason for the failure

14:08

to act, and I don't think that

14:10

that's going to be acceptable. Now

14:12

that smartphones and social

14:15

media apps are now so pervasive

14:17

and are actually such a big

14:19

force in society, you.

14:20

Say you've been covering it for a

14:23

little while. Tech issues in politics,

14:25

as you said, like a tech, has never been as pervasive

14:27

in our lives as it is now. And

14:30

I don't think there's ever been as strong

14:32

a set of community attitudes about what tech is

14:34

doing to our kids as there is now. I don't think

14:36

there's really much of a conception about how these issues

14:38

plays out electorally. Do you think there there

14:40

are votes to be won if the coalition

14:42

or any other party goes hard on Big Tech and says,

14:45

we have a set of policies that will protect kids.

14:47

I think it does resonate in the community.

14:49

And the trouble is, having a simple message that's

14:51

actually compelling and can be proven to work.

14:54

We have seen it come up in the past.

14:56

In the 90s, the

14:58

Howard government wrestled with free

15:00

speech versus calls to

15:02

say, control the the way people could

15:04

access pornography online. And that

15:06

turned into a big issue for Richard Alston at the

15:08

time, the communications minister later,

15:11

when labor was seeking to return

15:13

to power. Kim Beazley is labor leader,

15:15

came up with at one point the idea

15:18

of a clean feed for the internet, that there

15:20

would be a filtering regime that would

15:22

find a way to shield

15:24

households from some of the worst content online.

15:27

And that provoked a huge debate about

15:29

whether that was even workable. But

15:31

you do see political leaders want to

15:33

put to voters something that will

15:36

maintain community values in what

15:38

is basically a bit of a wild West.

15:50

One thing the government does want to do

15:52

is bring back its misinformation bill,

15:55

which also comes at this time when we're having

15:57

this debate about the dangers of social media.

15:59

I'm really keen to hear from both of you on this.

16:02

Firstly, Paul, what changes does the government want

16:04

to make to this bill now?

16:06

And David. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton

16:08

signalled he's open to looking at it. But is

16:10

that a majority view in the coalition?

16:12

Well, again, this is something that's been thrust back into the debate

16:14

because of the recent violent incident. So

16:17

after the Bondi attack, there was

16:19

a Twitter lead

16:21

narrative that the attacker

16:23

was a young man called Benjamin Cohen, who

16:25

was a Jewish person from Sydney who had nothing

16:27

to do with it. Channel seven ended up reporting

16:29

this. It was pushed out by some propagandists

16:31

on Twitter, one of whom lives in the Russian

16:34

embassy. So this provoked a big debate about how

16:36

social media platforms fuelled

16:38

misinformation in really traumatic

16:41

moments for the country. Chris Minns

16:43

said that social media misinformation spread

16:45

like wildfire, both after the Bondi attack

16:47

and then the western Sydney church attack, which

16:49

fuelled social tension around both those incidents.

16:52

Michelle Rowland, the communications minister, a few

16:54

days after those incidents, came out and said this

16:56

is proof that we need a bill, a

16:58

set of laws that allows the

17:00

government regulator, ACMA, which is what the draft

17:03

bill that was released last year, would do to

17:05

look under the bonnet, the social media firms and

17:07

ensure they have processes in place

17:09

to deal with misinformation and that

17:11

they're constantly upgrading and using

17:13

those processes to ensure that their social

17:15

media platforms are as clean as possible. That

17:17

bill that they put forward last year, as

17:20

I said, would allow ACMA, the regulator,

17:22

to kind of investigate and give them more

17:24

powers to fine social media platforms

17:26

that weren't doing this. The concerns

17:28

were very serious at the time, both from the coalition,

17:30

who dubbed it a kind of Orwellian ministry of truth,

17:33

but also from religious groups who are worried that

17:35

preachers might not be exempt. So, for example,

17:38

if a very conservative preacher said

17:40

on a live streamed service that homosexuality

17:42

is a mental illness, they were worried

17:45

that something like that might be captured as misinformation

17:47

and that person prosecuted under the law. Civil

17:49

liberties groups were worried that government

17:51

speech would not be captured as misinformation,

17:54

so a politician could not fall under these

17:56

laws. And then the coalition more

17:58

broadly was just worried that an

18:00

unelected set of bureaucrats in

18:02

the regulator would be pointing out

18:05

different posts online and saying

18:07

that is misinformation, that is a

18:09

lie, and potentially serving the government's

18:12

interests of the day. That fear was

18:14

fuelled by the fact that

18:16

at the same time, the voice referendum was occurring

18:18

and many of the arguments of the no side were

18:20

being branded as mis or disinformation by

18:23

yes proponents and people aligned

18:25

with the government. So the government shelved the bill.

18:27

At the time. They always said it would come back sometime

18:29

this year. And Minister Rowland has indicated

18:31

that this is justification for

18:33

the bill to come back. It's not actually clear

18:35

what changes they want to make to it, though. And

18:37

going to David, I think it's pretty unlikely

18:39

the coalition, unless there's absolutely

18:42

substantial change to the regulator's

18:44

power under that bill, would be likely to back

18:46

it.

18:46

I think Peter Dutton's initial response seemed

18:48

to be that he was open to the idea.

18:50

I think for parents that many of them

18:52

have made a decision now that they don't want their

18:55

eight, nine, ten, 11, 12 year olds

18:57

on their reading content that

19:00

they couldn't find in books available

19:02

to them at school or in your, you

19:04

know, on your programs or in newspapers. So

19:06

parents are making that decision now. But

19:08

it's tough because it's a communications

19:11

platform of choice for young

19:13

kids.

19:13

But of course, the coalition hasn't seen

19:16

a revised version of this bill or even

19:18

the coalition see the original version of the

19:20

bill.

19:20

There was a draft exposure bill last year.

19:23

But it never got to the point of a debate in

19:25

the Parliament on the wording of the bill. And

19:27

so it's a little theoretical to

19:29

talk about how the bill would work

19:32

and what the coalition should

19:34

agree to, because it hasn't got to that point

19:36

in the actual Parliament with the introduction

19:38

of the of the draft law. Clearly there

19:41

is some on the Liberal side who have got deep

19:43

reservations about this. We've seen

19:45

comments from people like the coalition frontbencher

19:47

James Patterson, who questions

19:49

how the bill would work, and we've seen

19:52

comments from backbenchers like Victorian

19:54

Liberal Keith Houlihan, who's also

19:56

expressed concerns. And I think that conveys

19:59

the sentiment that who is it who would rule

20:01

on what is false or

20:03

true in some of these public

20:05

remarks? What is misinformation?

20:08

Who gets to decide that on that

20:10

basic question, the entire

20:12

thing could fail again.

20:13

And the government's really annoyed with where

20:15

this debate got to on misinformation.

20:18

Michelle Rowland points to the fact

20:20

that the original proposal

20:22

for a bill along these lines came from

20:25

the previous coalition government. Paul Fletcher

20:27

was the communications minister at the time, and

20:29

this argument from the coalition, that there would

20:31

be bureaucrats looking at individual

20:33

pieces of information and testing

20:36

its merits and adjudicating it either true

20:38

or misinformation, she says, is not

20:40

the spirit of what the bill intended

20:42

to do. It was giving the regulator

20:44

an ability to look at systems and processes.

20:46

But the coalition's argument was how

20:49

would they determine whether those. Systems and processes

20:51

were working. Unless they were, they

20:53

were identifying. Themes or

20:55

specific parts of misinformation that they were

20:57

either addressing or not addressing. So that's

21:00

where the debate is. The government believed it was a blown

21:02

up political issue that

21:04

didn't actually reflect the essence of the bill.

21:06

Well, it sounds like it's going to be an

21:08

ongoing, complicated debate for quite

21:10

some time. Thanks so much for joining me.

21:12

Thanks, Rachel. She's both.

21:15

Today's episode of Inside Politics

21:17

was produced by Cormac Lally.

21:19

Our executive producer is me, Rachel

21:22

Clun. Inside politics is

21:24

a production of The Age and The Sydney

21:26

Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show

21:28

and want more of our journalism, subscribe

21:31

to our newspapers today. It's the

21:33

best way to support what we do.

21:35

Search the age or smash

21:37

combo forward slash.

21:40

Subscribe. I'm Rachel

21:42

Clun, this is inside politics.

21:44

Thanks for listening.