Australia Sues Telegram Over Alleged Terror Content
· news
Australia Takes Telegram to Court Over Alleged Failure to Remove ‘Pro-Terror’ Material
The eSafety commissioner of Australia, Julie Inman-Grant, has announced that her agency will take Telegram to court over the alleged failure to remove “pro-terror” material from its platform. This move comes as no surprise given the dire state of online hate speech and social media platforms’ role in perpetuating it.
Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to regulate online content and hold platforms accountable for spreading extremist ideologies. Last year’s ban on social media for under-16s was a significant step forward, but more needs to be done. The Online Safety Act sets out strict guidelines for platforms to remove prohibited material within 24 hours of being notified.
This case goes beyond Telegram’s alleged failure to comply with regulations. It highlights the broader problem of social media companies’ willingness to turn a blind eye to hate speech and extremist content on their platforms. As Inman-Grant pointed out, no platform is above the law, but some are willing to push the boundaries of what is acceptable in pursuit of profit.
The alleged permissive environment on Telegram makes it easy for users to find and engage with extremist material linked to notorious acts of violence, including the Christchurch mosque shootings and the Buffalo shooting. This raises serious questions about the company’s moderation policies.
Australia does not issue licenses for platforms like Telegram, but the government could apply to the federal court to request that the service be ceased. Inman-Grant’s agency has already fined Telegram A$1m in February 2025 for failing to respond on time to questions about how it was tackling child abuse and extremist material.
The case against Telegram is part of a broader effort to hold social media companies accountable for spreading hate speech and extremist ideologies. Other countries, including Russia and France, have taken steps to regulate online content and punish platforms that fail to comply with regulations.
Inman-Grant’s agency has made it clear that platforms will be held accountable for their actions. The case against Telegram sends a message that social media companies cannot ignore. As Inman-Grant noted after the Bondi Jewish festival attack, “This only serves to desensitise, to normalise and to sometimes radicalise” users.
The case against Telegram is a wake-up call for social media companies and governments around the world. It highlights the need for greater regulation of online content and stricter enforcement of regulations to prevent hate speech and extremism from spreading on platforms. As Australia moves forward in this digital age, it’s clear that no platform is too big or too powerful to be held accountable for its actions.
Reader Views
- CSCorrespondent S. Tan · field correspondent
This lawsuit highlights a glaring issue: social media companies are more concerned with maintaining their massive user bases and lucrative ad revenue than actually policing hate speech and extremist content. What's striking is that Telegram is not alone in this regard - many platforms have been accused of turning a blind eye to such material, but only Telegram has faced significant financial consequences for its alleged transgressions. It remains to be seen whether Australia's eSafety commissioner can hold the company accountable for its moderation policies.
- RJReporter J. Avery · staff reporter
It's time for tech companies to stop playing lip service to moderation and take meaningful action against extremist content. While Australia's eSafety commissioner is right to hold Telegram accountable, we need to consider the practical implications of this lawsuit. Can Australia realistically expect a decentralized platform like Telegram to comply with 24-hour removal notices when it has no centralized authority to enforce them? Or is this case about setting a precedent for future regulation and forcing platforms to choose between their bottom line and user safety?
- CMColumnist M. Reid · opinion columnist
While Australia's move to take Telegram to court over alleged terror content is a welcome step in regulating online hate speech, we must also scrutinize the government's own role in facilitating this environment. By not issuing licenses for platforms like Telegram, Australia has effectively outsourced moderation to companies that prioritize profits over safety. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act and whether it's too reliant on self-regulation by tech giants. A more proactive approach is needed from Canberra.