{
  "id": 14081017,
  "title": "We can’t block a livestream, but Australia could ban execution footage from the US – to an extent",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/13/we-cant-block-a-livestream-but-australia-could-ban-execution-footage",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-13T00:17:28.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Conversation AU",
    "slug": "the-conversation-au",
    "url": "https://theconversation.com/we-cant-block-a-livestream-but-australia-could-ban-execution-footage-from-the-us-to-an-extent-294141"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The recent proposal to broadcast the live execution of Nidal Hasan, a US military shooter, has sparked global outrage. This execution, the first by a military firing squad since 1945, would mark the first public US execution since 1936. While individual choice raises ethical questions, the case casts a spotlight on potential legal avenues for Australia to block access to this potentially harmful material.\n\nThe eSafety Commissioner's office in Australia, tasked with protecting users from harmful content, acknowledges it can't proactively prevent such a livestream from occurring. However, the Online Safety Act grants the government the legal power to block \"abhorrent violent conduct,\" a term that includes terrorism, murder, torture, rape, and kidnapping. The act's creation was inspired by the 2019 Christchurch massacre where a terrorist live-streamed the violence.\n\nBlocking such content presents technical challenges due to the widespread use of virtual private networks. These services allow users to access content as if they were located outside Australia, potentially bypassing blocking measures. Moreover, the eSafety Commissioner's powers to force social media companies to remove content have been tested but have faced resistance, as seen in a 2024 case where a company successfully fought a ruling to remove graphic footage from its platform.\n\nThe Online Safety Act's blocking powers are not entirely unrestricted, as public interest can serve as a factor. The government might argue that access to footage of a US firing-squad execution is in the public interest due to its news value. However, free speech advocates might argue this access is also a matter of public interest. Ultimately, the government must balance freedom of speech with its moral obligation to protect the public from harm, a challenge it shares with other countries grappling with the same issue.",
  "summary": "No country is an island when it comes to potentially harmful content online.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Free Malaysia Today",
        "title": "Australia says US plans to livestream execution ‘absolutely disgusting’",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/12/australia-says-us-plans-to-livestream-execution-absolutely-disgusting",
        "published": "2026-10-12T23:02:56.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}