Why Is Australia Going After Elon Musk?

Hey, welcome to Crossroads. First off, the Epoch Times currently is under a cyber attack from the Chinese Communist Party. Basically, folks, we've had a notice out to everyone. The CCP is currently launching a large-scale cyber attack on the entire Epoch Times website. The source of the attacks, the Chinese Communist Party, it was confirmed to us by a government agency. And because of this, some of our viewers and readers might be having trouble opening our website right now or might have a slower-than-usual experience on it. So we have an alert on our website that states the Chinese Communist Party, over the years, has launched many cyber attacks against the Epoch Times in its attempts to silence our truthful reporting. And while many Western media organizations have appeased the CCP, the Epoch Times has consistently exposed it. And I'll add that we continue to expose it, and we will keep doing this. This is not the first time they've attacked us like this. We have always pulled through, so don't worry. And frankly, if the Chinese Communist Party attacks you, it probably means you're doing something right. And that said, thank you all for your support. But back to today's stories. First off, Elon Musk right now is having an international battle for censorship because he had different countries trying to force their censorship laws beyond their own borders. Now, on this, let me show you first what Modernity has to say about Australia trying to do this right now. It says an Australian senator has called for ex-owner Elon Musk to be jailed for life for refusing to adhere to the Australian government's demands to remove a video of the brutal attack on a Christian bishop in Sydney last week by an apparent Muslim extremist. It notes that after Bishop Marmari Emanuel was attacked at his church in Sydney, the video taken from a live stream quickly went viral on X. You might have seen it. Australian officials and politicians from both sides of the spectrum immediately called for the footage to be removed in Australia. But Elon Musk has refused to do so, saying that X is a platform for freedom of expression and it will not censor content that is not illegal, especially beyond the borders of Australia. Australia's so-called e-safety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, an elected official, notably by the conservatives there, has ordered both X and Meta to remove footage of the stabbing under the Online Safety Act passed in 2021, which empowers the e-safety department to demand the removal of so-called class one material. In other words, news they don't like. X was ordered by the Australian federal court on Monday to block all users from viewing the footage. And the important thing with it is that actually X blocked it in Australia. The Australian government wants it blocked everywhere. They want to censor it even right here in the United States. And they're threatening to jail Elon Musk and then fine him and so on because he's not censoring the content for like Americans. Now, the video of the Christian bishop, again Marmari, went viral after an Islamist man walked towards him during a sermon and then began repeatedly stabbing him with a knife. Witnesses say the man repeatedly shouted Allah Akbar as he attacked the bishop and the Islamist man was shown afterwards smiling as people restrained him. Now, the video is somewhat graphic, so be warned, but I think it's necessary to show it. The lesson, my brothers and sisters, is as follows. You might expect many people were enraged by this. There were people outside the church afterwards wanting to get to the man and the police, of course, prevented that from happening. Afterwards, though, as tensions were kind of running high, the bishop, who was stabbed, released a statement. This is what he had to say. I'm doing fine, recovering very quickly, we thank the Lord Jesus. So there is no need to be worried or concerned. And a piece of advice to our beloved faithfuls, I need you to act Christ-like. The Lord Jesus never taught us to fight. The Lord Jesus never taught us to retaliate. The Lord Jesus never said to us, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The Lord Jesus said, never return evil with evil, but return evil with good. Now, the bishop goes on to mention that he forgives the man who stabbed him and frankly, good on him, because that takes some good spiritual strength. It's a good reminder for myself as well, to be honest, the nature of forgiveness. But back to the takedown request from the Australian government. Elon Musk noted that they've already censored the video in Australia. They've already done it. They've already abided by the standards of Australian law within Australia's jurisdiction. The problem is that he has, again, issues with it because Australia, the government there, they're demanding this video to be censored in every part of the world, including in the United States. And Elon Musk said, our concern is that if any countries lie to censor content for all countries, which is what the Australian E-Safety Commissioner is demanding, then what is it to, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire internet? He said, we have already censored the content in question for Australia pending legal appeal and it is stored only on servers in the USA. And that's a good point, in my opinion, because frankly, if you let a country anywhere in the world censor content for all countries on earth, then does that not mean that that country is able to dictate the internet freedom of the entire world? Now, Elon Musk also notes the Australian censorship commissar is demanding global content bans. And he adds as well in another post, that is exactly the issue. Should the E-Safety Commissar, he says an unelected official, in Australia have authority over all countries on earth? He's making it sound like Australia is basically trying to be the world dictator when it comes to freedom of speech. Now, and frankly, we saw Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were one of the most totalitarian countries next to the Chinese Communist Party when it came to their lockdowns and mandates and so on. And of course, free speech as well. Of course, even talking about vaccine safety and so on, when Australia was borderline a crime under the government, they went very far with it. And so what happens if they can express that beyond their own borders? What does it mean if they can censor content here? They have very extreme censorship laws in Australia. But look, this is what I have personally been warning about as well. If U.S. tech companies or news outlets or anyone else begin censoring based on the demands of other countries, then the global censorship laws everywhere are gonna be limited to the lowest common denominator. The worst abusers of censorship will be able to dictate the limits on free speech in the entire world. It means that the most totalitarian countries will set the standards. Because again, the people who want to censor the most, if it applies everywhere, then what does that mean for freedom of speech? It means that, look, right now it's Australia. What if it's the Chinese Communist Party tomorrow? Will these websites also bow down to them? And also in the United States, I would note, we have legal protections on the freedom of speech and the freedom of press enshrined in our constitution. And I would question, would it also violate our laws to allow foreign governments to censor our speech? In other words, in the enforcement of international law, would we allow American law to be violated? Now, in response to the demands, X issued a statement on why the company is not going to honor the demands from Australia's censorship authorities. I'll show you what they said, though, after a quick word from our sponsor. Experts agree, one of the best ways to protect against financial uncertainty is to diversify your portfolio. Learn how physical gold and silver can secure your retirement funds from today's economic challenges. With a gold IRA from American Heart for Gold, you can safeguard your wealth with no penalties or taxes when you transfer your current qualifying retirement accounts. Call now and our precious metals specialists will send you a free information kit, no cost or obligation. American Heart for Gold, a trusted industry leader with an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau, has a five-star rating from thousands of happy clients. Whether you are getting physical precious metals in a gold IRA or delivered to your doorstep, we offer only the highest quality gold and silver. For your peace of mind, we also offer a no-fee buyback commitment, a low-price guarantee, along with free shipping and free insurance. So don't wait. Call the number on your screen today and secure your financial future. Hey, welcome back. The Australian government is pressuring X, formerly known as Twitter, to censor a video of a Christian bishop being attacked. And in response to the demands, X issued a statement on why the company will not honor the demands from Australia's censorship authorities, arguing, again, that such a demand is not within the scope of Australian law. They don't have the jurisdiction. Now, ex-Global Government Affairs said this in an official post. They say, the recent attacks in Australia are a horrific assault on our free society. Our condolences go out to those who have been affected, and we stand with the Australian people in calling for those responsible to be brought to justice. And notes that following these events, the Australian e-safety commissioner ordered X to remove certain posts in Australia that publicly commented on the recent attacks against a Christian bishop. These posts did not violate X's rules on violent speech, which is basically limited to calling for it, not showing acts that have taken place as news incidents. They state, X believes that e-safety's order, again, that's the Australian commission, right, was not within the scope of Australian law, and we complied with the directive pending a legal challenge. They say that X has now received a demand from the e-safety commissioner that X globally withhold these posts or face a daily fine of 785,000 Australian dollars, which is about 500,000 USD. Now, this was a tragic event, they say, and we do not allow people to praise it or call for further violence. There is a public conversation happening about the event on X and across Australia, as is often the case when events of major public concern occur. They note that while X respects the rights of a country to enforce its laws within its jurisdiction, that's the important part because there's jurisdiction, the e-safety commissioner does not have the authority to dictate what content X's users can see globally. They say we will robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court. Global takedown orders go against the very principles of a free and open internet and threaten free speech everywhere. And again, I would go even further than that. I'd say that the attempt by the Australian censorship authorities to censor the free speech of Americans is a violation of American law under the constitution, and frankly, I would say that them violating American law through their ridiculous order is terrible. And in my opinion, honoring a demand like this would mean violating the law of the United States, of our constitution, on behalf of a foreign government that is trying to go far, far beyond its jurisdiction, in my opinion, right? Now, on another note, events like this are crucial for public debate, in my opinion. Again, in this one in particular, it enraged a lot of Christians. A lot of people were very angry about this. I would say, actually, the internet conversation was pretty rough for a bit, but remember, other events that were deemed newsworthy, like police shootings used for race protests in the United States, they don't seem to be treated with that same standard. When the events benefit the interests of the left, oftentimes they publish it everywhere. They want it to be seen by everybody. They'll say, say her name, say his name. They'll make you repeat it, they'll make you chant it, they'll make you say it out loud, and they will not let you forget it. That's allowed to stand. So why is it that when a Christian is attacked, for example, suddenly they want that to be silenced? Should events be censored only if they get the wrong groups of people angry? Should only select incidents be publicized depending on who the victims are and depending on which side of the political spectrum the anger is on. Now look, this is part of the debate now taking place in Australia, and they're suggesting that the government head on censorship, the E-Safety Commission, is an activist, not a politician, and they allege that her interest in censorship is based on her activist views. They're alleging this isn't about, say, just harmful content. It's about content she doesn't want because it goes against her political views. Here's a piece from Sky News in Australia after an appeal that was issued for this E-Safety Commission over a different takedown order that she issued because somebody was accused of misgendering a trans activist. Watch. You would think the E-Safety Commissioner would have bigger priorities, I don't know, child exploitation for one, than to bring down posts on X. Yeah, that's right. Look, there is a serious issue with the exposure of children to graphic and obscene content, and it needs to be dealt with. The problem that you've got here with this E-Safety Commissioner, she's an activist. She will continue to expand her role to police the internet, to censor debate in a way that's consistent with her own ideological views. We're just talking about the EPA. It's the exact same problem. You have these unelected bureaucrats that have vague powers, and they will fill it with their views. And she has a track record of censorship, and it only ever targets one side. And unfortunately, we're seeing that happen again. Now, Musk has, for the most part, agreed to honour the laws of each nation when it comes to censorship, but has recently started taking a much stronger stance on this. The request for global censorship, one of the big ones, started getting attention in January after the government in India began demanding that he censor a BBC documentary on X that was critical of Indian Prime Minister Modi. Hollywood Reporter said this, they said, the first half of the two-part documentary in India, The Modi Question, aired on BBC2 on January 17th, and it says the series investigates the, quote, persistent allegations against Modi of fanning the flames of Hindu nationalism and prejudice against India's largest Muslim minority. They say in particular, the DOC, sorry, the Doc, I think, explores his role in the 2002 riots in the Western Indian state of Gujarat, where Modi was chief minister at the time, and it says that it left over 1,000 people dead, and the majority of them Muslims. Further, it states that although the doc, the documentary, has not been aired within India, Kanchan Gupta, a senior advisor in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, said Tuesday that Musk's Twitter and Alphabet YouTube were ordered by the Indian government to block all links to the film within the country, and he later said that both platforms have complied with the directions. Now, of course, that was a censorship request that was applied within India, and for the most part, again, that's been Musk's stance on this. While he will openly oppose it, while he'll speak about it, he tends to not want to censor, he tends to follow domestic law. If a country has laws, he will honor it within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, but if they try to go beyond their borders, that's where he seems to be drawing the line, right? It's not like a global request like Australia's trying to do, for example. Although even in India, this was very controversial because this was a BBC documentary. Yes, it was critical of the Indian prime minister, but again, it's news, and should news be censored, and should American companies be forced to censor news in foreign countries because they don't like what it says? Musk had also said he would make requests like this public when he receives them, which he did in India, by the way, which also put some additional pressure on governments when they try to get content pulled offline. If they try to do it, Musk exposes it, and interestingly, it brings more attention to the issue than if they had just let it go anyways. Now, Musk's push against this, though, goes a bit further. He's pushing against the global censorship authorities, and it really started gaining steam when he got a request to censor users issued by the radical communist, I would say, Supreme Court in Brazil. They have a very radical, rogue Supreme Court that is using law as if they just write it on the fly, basically, they do whatever they want, and rather than censor on behalf of this radical judge in Brazil, Elon Musk said that he would expose what is taking place in that country. Now, I'll be going in depth into the Brazilian Supreme Court's attempts to threaten Elon Musk, though, only on Epic TV, our uncensored streaming platform where we cover stories a lot of other media refuse to touch, and our coverage on the Chinese Communist Party's plan to take over America is second to none, so if you haven't seen it, go watch it. We have extensive reports as well, special features, documentaries, and how the CCP plans to infiltrate the United States, and I detail the exact plans they have for it in my documentary, The Final War, the 100-year plot to defeat America, notably, a lot of which I state in that report is now taking place, and if you watch it, it will give you context of what you're currently seeing, and that's, again, exclusively on EpicTV.com, E-P-O-C-H-TV.com. So for those of you on YouTube, Rumble, Twitter, Facebook, join us on Epic TV for the rest of this episode and access all of our special features by clicking the link in the description below. I'll show you a quick trailer for The Final War before we go exclusively to Epic TV for the rest of this episode. The greatest threat facing the United States is the CCP. The Epoch Times investigation team had studied the CCP for years, but what we uncovered was yielding evidence beyond our imagination. With Chairman Mao, with the Prime Minister, our talks have been characterized by frankness. The Clinton administration said, oh, don't worry about it. This will be a poison pill for China. China's strategic goal is to make sure that the U.S. has four enemies, and one of them must be a terrorist group. We are giving of our life's blood so that the Chinese Communist Party can survive and thrive.