‘These aren’t just words’: The woman threatened for taking X to court

Earlier this year, Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety commissioner, found herself at the center of a storm after taking the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to court. The case, which was triggered by X’s refusal to remove videos of a religiously motivated stabbing at a Sydney church, saw a dramatic escalation in online hostility against her.

The legal action against X was initiated when the platform refused to take down the distressing footage, opting instead to restrict its visibility to Australian users only. This decision led Inman Grant to seek a court injunction to enforce the removal of the content globally. Although the case was eventually dropped, the fallout was significant.

Inman Grant became the target of a relentless online abuse campaign after Elon Musk, the owner of X, disparaged her in a tweet. Musk’s post, in which he labeled her as a “censorship commissar” and has 196 million followers, sparked an “avalanche of online abuse,” according to Inman Grant. A report from Columbia University, focusing on technology-facilitated gender-based violence and featuring Inman Grant as a case study, highlighted that she was mentioned in nearly 74,000 posts on X leading up to the court proceedings. Prior to this, she was relatively unknown in online circles.

The analysis revealed that most of these posts were negative, hateful, or threatening. Inman Grant was subjected to dehumanizing slurs and gendered insults, with comments like “left-wing Barbie” and “captain tampon” frequently appearing. The situation worsened when Musk’s rhetoric, perceived as disinformation, suggested that Inman Grant was attempting to impose global censorship, amplifying the vitriol directed at her.

Inman Grant reported that the online abuse extended beyond virtual threats. She stated that the intensity of the harassment led Australian police to advise her against traveling to the U.S. Additionally, her family members’ names were publicly exposed online in a practice known as doxxing. This exposure included credible death threats, prompting her to involve federal and local police and alter her movements for safety.

Inman Grant emphasized the severity of the threats she faced, describing them as more than just online hostility. “These aren’t just mean words where there’s a lack of resilience; these are threats of harm that can very easily spill over into real-world violence,” she asserted.

The case underscored the challenges faced by Australia’s internet watchdog, which is tasked with regulating online content deemed violent or sexually exploitative. The eSafety commissioner’s office had hoped to set a precedent for enforcing local online regulations against global social media companies. However, the court ultimately ruled that banning the posts from X’s global platform was not “reasonable,” as such a move might be “ignored or disparaged by other countries.”

In June, Inman Grant’s office decided not to pursue the case further and shifted its focus to other ongoing legal battles against X. Meanwhile, X’s Global Government Affairs team celebrated the outcome as a victory for “freedom of speech.”

The experience has brought to light the intense backlash that can follow regulatory actions against major tech platforms. It highlights the intersection of online harassment, free speech, and the challenges regulators face in trying to enforce their rules on global platforms. For Inman Grant, the ordeal has been a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of online actions and the need for continued vigilance in the fight against online abuse and threats.