Government sources question authority to block broadcast from US ally
The Australian government should block the planned livestream of the US military execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, the former army psychiatrist convicted of the 2009 Fort Hood mass shooting, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said, urging Communications Minister Anika Wells and the eSafety commissioner to act before the scheduled December 3 execution.
Hasan, 56, was sentenced to death by a military jury in 2013 after being convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Texas. Twelve of the 13 killed and 30 of the wounded were soldiers. The US government said last week it would livestream the execution, though the Pentagon has not confirmed how or on what platform the stream would be carried.
In comments to the ABC, Hanson-Young, the Greens’ communications spokesperson, called the broadcast “incredibly shocking and barbaric” and said “Australians don’t want this on our screens.” In a letter to Wells and the eSafety commission, she described the execution as an “unconscionable, abhorrent act” and urged “whatever action is necessary” to prevent it being broadcast in Australia or accessible online.
Hanson-Young asked the government to warn YouTube, Meta, TikTok and streaming services against carrying the video, and said the eSafety commission should pursue regulatory action against “any large platforms” that did. “Inaction on this will jeopardise millions of Australians’ online safety,” she wrote.
The call drew support from across the political divide. One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce called the public nature of the execution “Roman amphitheatre stuff,” telling News 24: “I certainly don’t want any children, or anybody to be honest, to witness another human being, being shot by a firing squad.” Shadow treasurer Tim Wilson said allowing the execution to be streamed would be “enormously problematic,” but raised concerns about opening “a censorship ban on the internet.” “If it’s going to be livestreamed, how are you going to do that without creating the artifice to be able to block content on the internet and create an online portal of censorship?” he told the ABC.
The United Nations’ office of the high commissioner for human rights warned on Friday that broadcasting the killing would amount to a public execution and “breach the absolute prohibition of torture.” The plan has drawn severe concern in the US and internationally, including among politicians, religious leaders and human rights advocates, with critics comparing the Trump administration to dictatorships in Iran and Afghanistan, the Guardian reported.
Under Australia’s Online Safety Act, the eSafety commissioner has powers to order platforms to block Australians’ access to specific posts containing vision classified as “refused classification” under the country’s classification code. The footage, if broadcast, would need to be assessed against criteria including whether it depicts “crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.”
The eSafety commissioner has previously used these powers. In 2024, the office ordered platforms to remove footage of the stabbing of a bishop in a Sydney church — a move that Elon Musk’s X challenged. The commissioner later shifted to blocking Australians’ access to the content rather than requiring removal. eSafety also ordered the removal of videos showing the shooting of rightwing influencer Charlie Kirk last year, though the classification review board later reduced the video’s rating from refused classification to R18+.
A spokesperson for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts said large broadcasters like TV stations “must comply with rules about reporting on violent or distressing content” and that it “would be expected they exercise strong editorial control over their coverage and act responsibly in reporting on this matter.” Government sources said they were investigating what action could be taken, but noted that the execution — which is legal under the American justice system — might be treated differently from videos of unlawful killings or other serious crimes that have been restricted by Australian regulators. The sources also pointed to the lack of clarity from the Trump administration about how and where the execution would be livestreamed.
The regulator has powers to seek multimillion-dollar fines against companies that fail to prevent the proliferation of extreme violent material; the first test case, against messaging platform Telegram, is due to be heard in the federal court in February next year. eSafety also has powers to declare the broadcast an “online crisis event” under laws passed after the 2019 Christchurch terror attack, allowing the regulator to direct internet service providers to block websites hosting graphic material depicting a terrorist act or violent crime.
The debate comes as Wells negotiates a digital duty of care bill, which would impose further obligations on big tech to protect users from harmful content. The bill is being finalised this week and is expected to be introduced later this week ahead of the minister’s address to the National Press Club on Thursday.