[j6zauas4gz]

> Under common law, courts typically presume a law does not apply 'extraterritorially' (outside Australia) unless this is made explicit. But lawyers for eSafety argued in the initial hearing on Monday that the only reasonable interpretation of the law was that it did cover overseas content, since the law is about online safety for Australians and Australians can easily see content available anywhere in the world via a VPN.

Although the "worldwide" part of it is important, its frustrating that the contours of the debate in Australia is about whether twitter should be censored globally or just for Australia, rather then the incredibly chilling speech implications that censoring this has in general.

[Thorentis]

I think the debate in the social and political sphere has already turned to this broader implication, but obviously for the legal challenge, X will solely be debating whether it should apply globally or not.