The essential point is that Musk has chosen the border he would like to apply when acting on requests to control or remove content. Australia wants him to act on the other side of that line – and nobody can be sure how the court will decide the reach of the law.

Musk has vocal supporters in what he frames as a test of free speech. With trust in political leaders falling over time,along with trust in the media,there are some who would put their faith in Musk before they would rely on a sovereign government. It is now a fixed feature of the Trumpian political era.

Watch out,however,for any argument that says Australia should not dictate terms to the social media giants because that’s what China does. That is classic false equivalence. The eSafety Commissioner is acting with the authority of a federal law passed by a parliament that reflects the will of a free people in a democracy.

One big issue goes well beyond the courtroom in this case:age verification. The eSafety Commissioner said she acted under the Online Safety Act to protect all Australians from extreme violent content,so this case is not about whether children are exposed to damaging material. Even so,the harm to children from social media is an everyday concern.

Facebook and its owner,Meta,give lip service to the idea of preventing young children signing up for content they should not see. So does X. Parents know the checks are weak. The fact is that children are exposed to the kind of violence and pornography they would not have seen before the advent of the iPhone and social media apps.

The violent video of the Wakeley incident is just one example. Almost two decades after the technology arrived,yet another tech titan rages against an elected government that tries to assert a community standard. Musk acts as if this is an outrage.

Musk poses a deceptive question:“Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries... then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?” He jumps to the alarmist scenario of total state power,without a moment’s thought about his responsibility for the content he publishes.

Asking a publisher to remove a violent video of a terrorist incident is not an assault on free speech. That test might come,in theory,if Australian authorities tried to take down a political video. This case is not that test.

Asking Musk to act is a fair request. The real outrage is that he thinks he’s a victim.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news,views and expert analysis.Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.