The short version
- US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the execution of Nidal Hasan will be livestreamed in early December, prompting calls for Australian access restrictions.
- The eSafety commissioner stated it cannot proactively block the stream but may enforce existing laws against platforms hosting refused classification content after the event.
- Previous legal battles with X over violent footage indicate that enforcement could lead to significant diplomatic tension with the Trump administration and domestic political controversy.
The United States military has announced plans to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the broadcast will occur in early December, a move that has immediately raised concerns among Australian policymakers and civil society groups about the potential exposure of graphic violence to domestic audiences.
In response to the announcement, members of the Greens party have urged the Albanese government and the eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, to prevent Australians from viewing the execution on television or digital devices. However, the regulator has clarified that it does not possess the legal authority to proactively block the livestream before it begins. Instead, officials indicated they would monitor the situation and enforce existing standards that may require online platforms to remove content deemed unacceptable under Australian law.
The eSafety commissioner operates under the Online Safety Act, which grants powers to order social media companies such as Meta, Instagram, and X to block access to material classified as 'refused classification.' This category typically includes footage of terrorist attacks and extreme violence. While some platforms may voluntarily restrict the video based on their own terms of service, history suggests that others will resist removal orders, viewing them as infringements on free speech or platform autonomy.
X, formerly Twitter, has a documented history of challenging eSafety directives regarding violent content. In 2024, the platform successfully argued in court to keep footage of a stabbing attack on a Sydney bishop available to Australian users. More recently, X won appeals to downgrade the classification of videos depicting the assassination of Charlie Kirk and an attack on Iryna Zarutska from refused classification to R18+, allowing them to remain online with age restrictions rather than being removed entirely.
The regulatory framework also includes laws passed in 2019 following the Christchurch mosque shootings, which allow the commissioner to issue takedown notices for websites hosting actual violent crimes. These powers were previously used in 2022 to remove content related to the Buffalo supermarket shooting. The regulator can also declare an 'online crisis event' to compel internet service providers like Telstra and Optus to block specific sites, though this authority has never been exercised.
Utilizing these broader powers, particularly against major social media platforms or government-owned sites, could provoke a significant domestic political reaction. Conservative media outlets in Australia have previously criticized the eSafety commissioner’s actions, and a move to block US government content might escalate into a diplomatic incident with the Trump administration. Given that the crisis event power has never been used, regulators may be hesitant to deploy it in such a high-profile international context.
Julie Inman Grant faces additional pressure as her term concludes in January. She has stated she will not seek reappointment, but US politicians aligned with President Trump have already labeled her a 'zealot for global takedowns' and accused her of threatening American free speech. These criticisms emerged after she declined to testify before a US congressional hearing. Any decision to restrict access to the execution footage is likely to intensify this scrutiny.
The regulator is also currently testing its enforcement capabilities against messaging platform Telegram, seeking fines of up to A$54.6 million for failing to remove terrorist execution videos. A hearing for this case is scheduled for February next year. This ongoing legal battle highlights the difficulty regulators face in holding platforms accountable for violent content, especially when those platforms operate across international borders and resist local censorship mandates.
As the December date approaches, the eSafety commissioner must balance its mandate to protect Australians from harmful online material with the limitations of its legal powers and the potential for geopolitical fallout. The situation underscores the growing complexity of digital governance in an era where state-sponsored violence can be broadcast globally in real time, challenging traditional notions of jurisdiction and content moderation.
While Meta and other companies may comply with removal requests voluntarily, the resistance from platforms like X suggests that a unified block is unlikely without significant legal intervention. The outcome will depend on how quickly regulators can act after the stream begins and whether courts uphold their authority to classify state executions as refused classification material under Australian law.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Australia may risk a diplomatic spat with the Trump administration if it limits the viewing of a US execution
