In a 19 April letter to eSafety from X’s lawyer, Justin Quill, responding to the initial removal notice from eSafety, Quill repeated X’s public statement that X does not consider the notice to be “a valid exercise of power by your office” and argued “X Corp has complied with the notice by promptly making the content inaccessible to end-users in Australia with Australian IP addresses”. “Using a VPN is very easy,” he said in another tweet on the same day. “To ensure that you can still access the X platform, download a virtual private network (VPN) app,” he said in an 8 April tweet. This is a key component of eSafety’s case against X, according to the affidavit, with investigators accessing the tweets using this method.ĭagg pointed to Musk’s own recent tweets promoting the use of VPNs to access X during his recent stoush with the Brazilian government. Tests on some of the URLs submitted to X by eSafety detailed in the court documents using a virtual private network connection suggest many are still accessible from other countries, not hidden behind a notice as the court had ordered.Ī spokesperson for X told Guardian Australia on Wednesday: “X is in compliance with Australian law, has restricted all the relevant content in Australia and is removing any content that praises or celebrates the attacks.”Īn affidavit submitted to the court on Monday by the eSafety commissioner’s general manager of regulatory operations, Toby Dagg, argues that Australians can access the tweets using a virtual private network (VPN) connection, which makes it appear that their IP address is located outside Australia. X has said it has geo-blocked access to the 65 tweets in question, making them unavailable within Australia, with the intention of challenging the removal notice in court. This means future tweets containing the video are not covered by the order. The current order is not a rolling order for the removal of every tweet containing the video, but refers only to the 65 tweets identified by eSafety. “I’m not dealing with the political or media issues here. Hoyne said there were significant legal issues to do with eSafety’s powers over content overseas to be dealt with:

Hoyne also said the case was “above his paygrade” and X was approaching barrister Bret Walker SC about the case. Justice Geoffrey Kennett extended the interim injunction ordering the posts be hidden from view until 5pm, when the court will hold an injunction hearing. Class 1 material depicts gratuitous or offensive violence with a high degree of impact or detail.ĮSafety expected X to have complied with the order by Tuesday night, with the interim injunction in place until 5pm Wednesday.Ĭounsel for the eSafety commissioner, Christopher Tran, said on Wednesday the current order had not been complied with. On Monday night, X was ordered by the federal court of Australia to hide the tweets flagged by the eSafety commissioner because they contained what is deemed to be “class 1” material under Australian classification law. What's behind the fight between Elon Musk's X and Australia's eSafety commissioner? – video

Elon musk paypal tweet