This is interesting in that it shines a light on why Hegseth mentioned livestreaming the execution, an illogical idea, as it’s a setup for their global partners to promote censorship at home. It kind of betrays a global partnership contrary to how government leaders present conflict between nations…
https://reclaimthenet.org/australia-censorship-bill-execution-video
Once the state can decide what adults may see, the definition of harmful material rarely stays put.
By Cindy Harper
A staffer for Australia’s Labor government told US author Michael Shellenberger during a meeting in Parliament House that the government’s Digital Duty of Care censorship bill is needed to stop people from seeing “violent material” such as footage of a US soldier’s execution.
The meeting took place on October 13, and the staffer cited the case of mass murderer Nidal Hasan, a former US Army psychiatrist who is to be put to death by firing squad on December 3 at Fort Hood in Texas, the same base where he killed 13 people in 2009.
Shellenberger was told that the government needed more power to censor in order to prevent the video of the execution from being seen in Australia.
This is the same reasoning the European Union (EU) is using. On October 12, an EU spokesman warned that if the execution is livestreamed, it may use its Digital Services Act (DSA) censorship law to punish any platform that carries it.
So both Australia and the EU are using this one case to push for more control over what people can and must not see online.
The difference between the two is that the EU at this point is not asking for new powers, but the Australian government is, and is using the same argument.
Shellenberger wrote that he asked the staffers if they were aware that their bill would have allowed the government to censor footage of last year’s Bondi massacre. The response was that the difference was that the Bondi massacre “was news.”
Shellenberger asked if they realized their bill would give the government the power to censor news. The answer was that they didn’t seem to know, or care. In fact, they told him they were “moving forward with the bill.”
Shellenberger concluded that the government wants the power to “arbitrarily censor scenes of violent crime, or violence, for any reason.”
Shellenberger writes that the staffers did not appear to know much about the bill they were trying to promote, and were not aware that it would give the eSafety Commissioner and “approved researchers” the power to create fake accounts, record material, engage with users, and generate content, including with AI.
These powers would apply “despite anything to the contrary in any other law.”
Shellenberger attended a press conference at Parliament House the day before, alongside Coalition senators, and said that the bill was “so sweeping that it would basically put the platforms in a position of erring on the side of censorship rather than erring on the side of free speech.”
Meanwhile, an Australian government spokesman said that “Australians rightly expect that the content won’t appear on their screens or in their teenagers’ feeds. Platforms have a responsibility to meet those expectations.”
The office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said that while it cannot prevent a livestream from happening, “online services have responsibilities under Australia’s online safety regulatory framework to protect users from harmful material.”
The Department of Communications said that broadcasters must “exercise strong editorial control over their coverage and act responsibly in reporting on this matter.”
eSafety already has the power to order the removal of content it deems to be “refused classification” – and has used it, for example, to have footage of a stabbing in a Sydney church removed, as well as videos of the shooting of Charlie Kirk. The classification review board later reduced the Kirk video’s rating to R18+.
The Greens are also in favor of censoring the execution, with Senator Sarah Hanson-Young writing to the communications minister and eSafety to “take whatever action is necessary” to stop it from being livestreamed, and describing it as “an unconscionable, abhorrent act.”
Some politicians expressed doubt that the government can block the video without creating “an online portal of censorship.” One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce called it “Roman amphitheatre stuff” and asked, “If it’s going to be livestreamed, how are you going to do that without creating the artifice to be able to block content on the internet and create an online portal of censorship?”
Shadow treasurer Tim Wilson was also skeptical. “But the challenge is going to be: how do you do that in a way that doesn’t amount to a censorship ban on the internet?” he asked.
The EU is threatening to use the DSA, which the Trump administration has said is a tool of “foreign censorship.”
Reclaim The Net has reported that the Australian government funded Teach Us Consent, a group that campaigned for this bill and stood beside Prime Minister Anthony Albanese when he announced it.
In September, we reported that the US government warned Australia that the bill could be used for viewpoint-based censorship.
We also reported that when eSafety ordered X to remove a video of the stabbing in a church, X refused and took the matter to court, where it won. In 2025, an Australian tribunal overturned eSafety’s order to remove a post by Canadian activist Chris Elston.
Nobody has to watch an execution – but who gets to decide what adults can or cannot see online, and on what grounds, is the real question here. The Australian government staffers seem to have wanted the power to censor the internet first – and then looked for a reason, and found it in this one grim video. But once the power is there, the “reasons” to use it will change, and the power will remain.