“Should the eSafety Commissar (an unelected official) in Australia have authority over all countries on earth,” he asked.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese sided with Inman Grant – and seemingly urged her on. “Elon Musk is an arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law – and also common decency,” he said.

‘We can’t be the internet police’

However, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton suspected overreach.

“We can have a say about what images are online here in our country, we can’t influence what happens elsewhere in the world. I think it’s silly to try that,” he said in an interview with radio station 2GB.

“We can’t be the internet police of the world, I know the prime minister’s trying that at the moment.

“If we have a situation where you’ve got a cleric being stabbed, and that’s inciting violence, the law is very clear about the ability to take that down – but I don’t think the law extends to other countries, nor should it.”

It’s an argument Musk has made in Brazil, India and Turkey as has battled removal notices – and even urged users of X to circumvent geo-blocking with VPNs.

However, the removal notice for the stabbing video tweets only required that “reasonable steps” be taken to restrict access to Australian users. Whether geo-blocking alone is reasonable will be one of the arguments made by X Corp’s legal team on May 10.

The main challenge will be to the classification of the stabbing video as class IA material, which “includes child sexual exploitation, pro-terror and extreme crime and violence material” (as per the Online Safety Act). This much was confirmed by X in a statement issued on Friday (AEST) from New York.

“First, we believe that these posts should not have been banned in Australia at all. The content within the posts does not encourage or provoke violence and fits within the Australian legislation’s category that permits content that can be reasonably considered as part of public discussion or debate,” the company said.

“Second, we oppose the demand to globally remove this content from X, as we believe that no government should possess such authority. X believes in respecting the right of a country to enforce its laws within its jurisdiction, and also believes that governments should not be able to censor what citizens of other countries see online, and that regulators should stay within the boundaries of the law.”

Arguing it is not Class 1A material will be problematic. Police have declared the stabbing of Bishop Emmanuel a terrorist incident. And while the bishop did not suffer catastrophic injuries – and opposes the removal notice – it was an extreme and violent act.

Another question for the court will revolve around how effective any permanent injunction might be – a point made by Justice Geoffrey Kennet as he granted the order against X Corp. “The horse has bolted onto other platforms,” the judge said.

The ‘Streisand effect’

Barrister Marcus Hoyne, for X Corp, even raised the “Streisand effect”.

In 2003, singer Barbra Streisand filed a $50 million lawsuit against a photographer in the California Coastal Records Project for invasion of privacy when an aerial image of her mansion was published on the internet (it has 12,000 images in the collection).

Before her lawsuit, the image – a rear view of her mansion – had been downloaded six times, twice by her lawyers. Within a month of her filing the lawsuit there had been over 500,000 downloads. She also lost the case.

Bishop Emmanuel’s video message on Anzac Day will arguably encourage others to seek out the video.

“I do not condone any acts of terrorism or violence,” he said. “It would be of great concern if people use the attack on me to serve their own political interest to control free speech.”

The bad news for Musk is that the bishop’s view is probably irrelevant. Inman Grant’s brief is community safety and she did not have to rely on a complaint to act (as she did with Cook).

The eSafety commissioner makes no apology for targeting Musk.

Last year, the commission issued its first BOSE (basic online safety expectations) notice in relation to child sexual exploitation and abuse material and activity on X.

It accused X of leaving some sections entirely blank and providing incomplete or inaccurate responses to others and later imposed the maximum fine of $610,500. X is appealing in the Federal Court.

Inman Grant also told Senate estimates she was worried Musk had shut X’s office in Australia and that only skeleton staff remained.

“We need to know that we have people that we can interface here and who are looking after Australians’ concerns and providing those back to HQ,” she said.

Still, 2024 marks a significant escalation, which could prove costly for X Corp. On top of the BOSE notice, the maximum penalty for a body corporate is $782,500 for each day of non-compliance with a removal notice.

The clock started ticking 24 hours after X Corp got the notice for video tweets of the bishop’s stabbing. Not that Musk will care. He’s fighting a much bigger battle.