Wakeley isn’t the kind of place tourists ever see. It’s in Sydney’s west, miles from the beautiful harbor, soaring Opera House, and Sydney’s idyllic beaches. It’s baking hot in the summer, and surprisingly cold in the winter. It’s a world away from the homes of well-heeled Sydneysiders spilling in from the coast to gracious, leafy suburbs. So, who lives in Wakeley? The majority are first generation immigrants. English is the language used at home in only 21.2% of households there. The rest? Vietnamese, Arabic, Assyrian, Mandarin, and a range of other languages. A surprising number of Wakeley’s residents are from Iraq and Syria, including the colorful Assyrian Christian Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. Outside his niche, it’s likely none of us would ever have heard of Bishop Emmanuel had not a teenager screaming “Allah Akbar” stabbed him during a sermon on April 15th.
In one sense, this is just another terrorist knife attack. They’ve happened at churches in France, on the streets of London, at a train station in China, in Belgium, Germany, Egypt, Israel, Spain, Morocco, the US, and so the list rolls on. In Australia alone this is at least the fourth Islamic extremist knife attack in the last 10 years. Like US school shootings, they’re happening with such regularity our various sides of politics have their partisan talking points at the ready. But there is one sense in which the Wakeley stabbing is different: it’s sparked a global debate over freedom of speech with the Australian Government’s “eSafety Commissioner” on one side, and Elon Musk on the other.
At the center of the dispute is footage of the stabbing that the Australian eSafety Commissioner ordered globally removed from Meta (Facebook and Instagram), and X (Twitter). Meta complied. Elon Must at X? Not so much. He agreed to geo–block the footage so it can’t be viewed in Australia, but refused to block it globally. Somewhat surprisingly, Bishop Emmanuel came out in support of Musk, stating:
I do acknowledge the Australian government’s desire to have the videos removed because of their graphic nature. However, noting our God-given right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, I’m not opposed to the videos remaining on social media. I[t] would be of great concern if people used the attack on me to serve their own political interest to control free speech… The moment we oppress this very freedom of speech and religion, we are losing the very human identity…2
The Australian eSafety Commissioner disagrees. The eSafety Commissioner’s ambit originally was to protect Australian children online, but coming into effect in 2023, its authority was extended. It explains its expanded authority this way:
For the first time anywhere in the world, Australia has an Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme.3 This scheme gives us the authority to require online service providers to remove online abuse that targets an Australian adult with the intention of causing serious harm. The fact that the Australian commissioner is trying to extend her authority to censor content globally should be of concern to everyone.
The eSafety Commissioner further has under its ambit “Targeted powers to require internet service providers to block access to material showing abhorrent violent conduct… such as kidnapping, rape, torture, murder, attempted murder and terrorist acts.”4
On its face, the knife attack on Bishop Emmanuel fits squarely in the powers of the eSafety Commissioner. It is abhorrent violent conduct, it’s an attempted murder and it’s a terrorist act. The question, though, is whether such content should be banned in Australia, and even if it should, can Australia ban it for the rest of the world?
There is broad agreement that some image censorship is not only appropriate, but necessary. The obvious examples include child exploitation, cruelty as a form of perverse entertainment, and photos of people undressed shared without their permission. But should censorship be extended to newsworthy footage that “depicts abhorrent violent conduct, such as kidnapping, rape, torture, murder, attempted murder and terrorist acts”?
Maybe it should? Video footage of terrorist acts can inspire further terrorism. Indeed, the teenager who stabbed Bishop Emmanuel was later found to have images of other Islamic terrorist attacks on his computer. Further, there is the dignity of the victims to consider. It’s likely most people would not want footage of themselves in immense distress, dying, or dead shared. And then there’s protection of the viewers from what are objectively upsetting images. We’ve all seen the 9/11 footage, true, but who wants to scroll through Instagram or X and be confronted with explicit images of the bodies of those victims who jumped to escape the fire? Maybe we don’t have a right not to be offended, but don’t we have a right not to be exposed to revolting images – at least without opting in to do so?
If we agree violent images should be censored, however, we have to answer whether footage of 9/11 in total should be banned – after all, every single image is of violent terrorism. What about the JFK assassination? Footage from the Holocaust, or currently, the causalities in Israel and Gaza? Is there any way to truly come close to understanding what is going on in our world without actually seeing it? Or should everything be filtered through government watchdogs? At what point do we cede our ability to evaluate events and understand the world around us to governments and big tech? Already there is a well-earned distrust of both.
Balancing conflicting societal interests and individual rights is difficult. The sweeping powers entrusted by Australia to an unelected commission headed by a former Microsoft lobbyist, however, would appear among the worst ways to develop trust and to prevent governmental overreach. The fact that the commissioner is trying to extend her authority to censor content globally should be of concern to everyone. As Elon Musk put it:
[I]f ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian ‘eSafety Commissar’ is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?5
No doubt China, Russia, and Iran are watching closely what happens next. Australia may have the “first time anywhere in the world” eSafety Commissioner with such a broad ambit, but if they succeed in imposing global censorship, they won’t be the last…
Anthony Albanese, Australia’s Prime Minister, took on Musk publicly calling him an “arrogant billionaire.” Maybe he is. But even Musk hasn’t tried to tell the entire world what it can, and cannot, view. As to Bishop Emmanuel? His recent words are worth remembering no matter where we fall on the free speech spectrum:
I forgive whoever has done this act and I say to him, ‘You’re my son I love you and I will always pray for you. And whoever sent you to do this I forgive you as well in Jesus’ mighty name.’ I have nothing in my heart but love for everyone, whether that person is a Christian or not that’s totally beside the point. I have forgiven then, I’m praying for them, and for his young man I say to you, ‘You are my son, and you will always be in my prayers.’ May the Lord Jesus forgive you, may the Lord Jesus bless you and show you the way, my dear son. And once again to your beloved faithful, we need to reflect Christ in our lives. The Lord Jesus never said go out and fight on the street, never said to retaliate but to pray.6
James Standish earned his JD, cum laude, from Georgetown, his MBA from the University of Virginia and his bachelors degree from Newbold College, England, where he was student association president. He served as executive director of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, and as director of legislative affairs for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He now runs his own firm and serves as president of the Byington Center.
1 Stabbing as a terrorist tactic. (2024, April 20). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabbing_as_a_terrorist_tactic
2 Beatty, L. (2024, April 25). Stabbed bishop’s ‘free speech’ message. News. https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/bishop-mar-mari-emmanuel-delivers-anzac-day-message-on-church-stabbing-video/news-story/deab80d9f422dad6fc3a3169c5487785
3 Our legislative functions | eSafety Commissioner. (n.d.). eSafety Commissioner. https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-legislative-functions
4 About the Commissioner | eSafety Commissioner. (n.d.). eSafety Commissioner. https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/about-the-commissioner
5 Kaye, B., & Jose, R. (2024, April 23). Musk decries Australian court “censorship” of X terror posts. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-pm-calls-musk-arrogant-billionaire-after-court-orders-x-hide-church-2024-04-23/
6 Rodrigues, M. (2024, April 18). Mar Emmanuel forgives attacker in audio message: “I love you my son.” The Catholic Weekly. https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/mar-emmanuel-forgives-attacker-in-audio-message-i-love-you-my-son/
