Australia is preparing to respond to plans to live-stream the execution of Nidal Hasan, a US military prisoner convicted of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, scheduled for December 3 in Texas. The execution, which will be carried out by firing squad—the first US military execution by this method since 1945—is expected to be streamed publicly by the US Department of Defense.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the planned broadcast as “completely abhorrent” and said his government would do everything possible to prevent the live stream from being accessible in Australia. Albanese expressed concern about the potential exposure of children and families to the event and emphasized a responsibility to block its viewing. However, he acknowledged the difficulty in doing so, noting that the country’s internet regulator does not currently have the power to directly stop the stream from being shown online. The Australian government has indicated it will engage with social media companies to discourage the dissemination of the footage within Australia.

The call to restrict the execution’s broadcast has drawn broad political consensus in Australia. Opposition figures from different parts of the political spectrum, including far-right lawmaker Barnaby Joyce and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, have publicly opposed the streaming, describing it as akin to “Roman amphitheatre stuff” and calling for regulatory intervention. Environment Minister Murray Watt also condemned the plan, calling it “absolutely disgusting.” Internationally, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights criticized live-streaming executions, warning that it may violate prohibitions against torture and amount to a form of public execution.

While the Australian eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has some authority under the Online Safety Act to request that social media platforms block or remove content deemed excessively violent or classified as unsuitable, the commissioner’s powers do not extend to proactively blocking live streams before they occur. Generally, these powers have been applied after content is uploaded, for example in cases involving footage of terror attacks or violent crimes. Platforms like Meta have historically acted to limit distribution of violent materials, but others, notably X (formerly Twitter), have resisted such measures, successfully challenging regulatory decisions related to violent content in Australian courts.

Blocking or restricting access to the execution video could trigger diplomatic tensions between Australia and the United States, especially given the political sensitivities around online content moderation. Some conservative US politicians have previously criticized Inman Grant, accusing her of overreach in content regulation, charges the commissioner has rejected. Given these complexities and the history of pushback from certain platforms and political groups, Australian officials face significant challenges in balancing public concerns with the limits of regulatory authority.

At present, the eSafety Commission is monitoring the situation and prepared to enforce existing standards after any content becomes available. However, unless Australian ministers intervene directly, fully preventing access to the live stream may prove difficult. The scheduled execution and its planned public broadcast have thus ignited an unusual convergence of political and ethical debate across multiple countries about the limits of online content, public interest, and state responsibility.