Elon Musk once again demonstrated with actions that his fierce defense of freedom of expression goes beyond words.

This time he did it in Australia, where a federal judge ruled that he would not extend a temporary block against a viral video spread on X of a stabbing in a church in Sydney last month.

A case about freedom of expression for Australians

On April 15, in Sydney, an Orthodox bishop, Mar Mari Emmanuel, was stabbed during the celebration of a Catholic mass by a 16-year-old Sunni Muslim jihadist teenager who, according to various reports, was “radicalized” for religious reasons. The images of that very violent attack went viral on social networks. The disturbing video especially sparked controversy in Australia, with the Australian internet safety watchdog seeking to censor the video for its explicit content.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, the top official at Australia's independent regulator for online safety, issued a court order banning X (Twitter) and Facebook from publishing the images of the attack on Bishop Mar Mari. However, Grant's intention went beyond just blocking the post for Australian citizens, he also wanted social media platforms to completely remove posts worldwide, with a global blocking order.

X refused to comply and went to court, where it won its big victory on Monday, when a federal judge sided with the platform, arguing that the Australian regulator's request for a global block against the publication of the content would be unreasonable.

Federal Court of Australia Judge Geoffrey Kennett published the reasons for his decision on Tuesday.

In accordance with the court order and the development of the case, X, without completely complying with the regulator's original request, blocked Australian users by geolocation access to the video of the attack, but Commissioner Grant, who is a former Twitter employee, had requested that they also be 65 links that led to the video will be removed from the platform.

In his ruling, Judge Kennett described as “powerful” X's argument about the lack of reasonableness behind the request to remove the URLs that directed to the video.

The judge said that the measure went directly against the international concept of the “comity of nations,” a foundation that recognizes that the laws of countries have territorial limits.

“If given the reach contended for by the commissioner, the removal order would govern ... the activities of a foreign corporation in the United States ... and every country where its servers are located,” Kennett wrote. “It would be a clear case of a national law purporting to apply to persons or matters over which, according to the comity of nations, the jurisdiction properly belongs to some other sovereign or state.”

The judge explained that a removal order such as the one proposed by the Australian regulator would be rejected in various countries, including the United States, where X is based.

“This is not in itself a reason why X Corp should not be held to account, but it suggests that an injunction is not a sensible way of doing it,” Kennett said.

After the judge's ruling, Musk wrote on X: “Not trying to win anything. I just don’t think we should be suppressing Australian’s rights to free speech.”

However, this first victory for Musk against censorship in Australia is just the first step in a long court battle.

According to ABC News, X will return to Federal Court on Wednesday for a preliminary hearing into his challenge to the validity of Commissioner Grant's original removal notice.

According to the network, the trial date could also be set this Wednesday.

But not everything is played in the courts, since the Australian authorities are apparently determined to even change the country's laws if the courts rule against them.

In fact, Musk himself has had strong discussions with various Australian politicians and authorities. For example, Australia's Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, called him a “egotistical billionaire.”

One senator, Jacqui Lambie, branded him an “knob” and openly called for Musk's jailing before arguing that Australia should enact stricter moderation laws against platforms like X.

Musk did not remain silent and said that Lambie was an “enemy of the people of Australia.”

Praise for Musk for defying the Australian Government

The eccentric billionaire, a self-declared “freedom of expression absolutist,” is not only waging court battles in Australia, but also in Brazil, where he is trying to defeat the powerful progressive Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes, which has become the de facto regulator of social networks in the South American giant.

These legal battles by Musk against governments that are trying to regulate social networks are generating high praise for the billionaire owner of Tesla and X.

One such praise came from journalist Terry Barnes, a Melbourne contributor for the conservative publication The Spectator.

In a scathing column, Barnes highlighted Musk's effort to defend the spread of the attack against Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.

For Barnes, if Commissioner Grant is successful, then Australians would not have the right to access certainly violent and disturbing, but necessary images, such as the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7 or images of the war in Gaza.

“There is no denying the images and video of the Sydney stabbing incident are violent and disturbing. For some, they may be a form of violence voyeurism, viewed by a sick few simply because of what they are. But that’s no reason for a government or government agency to censor and suppress them," Barnes wrote.

“Musk may be outspoken, eccentric, and not everyone’s cup of tea. But he is right to uphold the freedoms of speech and expression fundamental to a democratic society. He is also right to assume that intelligent people are capable of using their own judgment when deciding whether or not to see posts of those images, or indeed any content that is confronting in its violence and brutality," he said.