Barnaby Joyce backs Greens bid to block livestreamed US execution in Australia
Australian One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce has backed the Greens' campaign to block the livestreamed execution of US mass shooter Nidal Malik Hasan in Australia. Joyce denounced the Pentagon's plan to broadcast the 3 December execution as "Roman amphitheatre stuff", arguing that exposing Australians, particularly children, to such content is unacceptable. The move puts Joyce at odds with his former Coalition colleagues, who have raised free-speech concerns about enforcing such a ban.
Hasan is scheduled to face the firing squad following his conviction for killing 13 people and injuring 32 in a 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood military base in Texas. If broadcast, this will mark the first time a lawful execution has been publicly streamed in the United States, and the first US military execution in 65 years. The Greens' communications spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young has written to Australia's eSafety Commissioner requesting the livestream be blocked, citing risks to online safety for both adults and children.
- MP backs Greens in calling for execution livestream ban
- First US military execution in 65 years to be broadcast
- Coalition colleagues oppose censorship on free speech grounds
New here? Start with this
Nidal Malik Hasan is a US military officer convicted of a mass shooting at Fort Hood military base in Texas in 2009. He killed 13 people and injured 32 in the attack and has been on death row since his conviction.
Hasan is scheduled to be executed by firing squad on 3 December. The US military plans to broadcast the execution live, which would mark the first public livestreaming of a lawful execution in the United States and the first US military execution in 65 years.
In Australia, there is debate about whether the livestream should be allowed. The Greens have asked Australia's eSafety Commissioner to block it, citing concerns about online safety and children's exposure to violent content. Coalition members have expressed concerns about government restricting what Australians can access online.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those supporting a block contend that livestreaming an execution serves as voyeuristic spectacle rather than genuine journalism, and that government has a legitimate responsibility to protect vulnerable audiences—particularly children—from graphic violence that may cause psychological harm. This reflects reasonable community protection rather than censorship of serious information, especially when the content offers no informational value beyond raw shock value.
The case against
Those opposing the block argue that responsible adults should determine their own media consumption without government intervention, and that censorship of lawful events, however disturbing, sets a troubling precedent. They note that existing parental controls already enable families to restrict children's access, and contend that a functioning democracy respects citizen choice about challenging content rather than shielding the public through government decision-making about what adults may view.
Americas Geopolitics Politics World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Barnaby Joyce unveils shock move to join forces with the Greens over US livestream execution ban: ‘Roman amphitheatre stuff’”.