An individual could face jail if their social media service or online platform recklessly provides access to or hosts offending material and they do not "expeditiously" put a stop to it. A company could face a fine of up to 10 per cent of annual global turnover for the crime. A jury would determine whether a platform's response time is reasonable. Loading Mr Porter singled out online forums 8chan and 4chan as smaller sites run by individuals who could be prosecuted. The sites resist policing of their content and are home to white supremacist subcultures. They have been temporarily blocked by internet service providers for hosting versions of the Christchurch video. "8chan in this instance received a request to take the material down from the New Zealand government and they just flat out refused," Mr Porter said. He said Australia would not be able to prosecute 8chan if such a refusal occurred in Australia and that would be addressed under the proposed laws.

"With organisations like 8chan, which grew out of 4chan, there are very often on these smaller websites — radical, fanatical websites — individuals who are responsible for the hosting service, who would now face up to three years' jail, potentially ... whom we would indict, attempt to extradite and prosecute," he said. While discussion following the attack initially centred on the role of digital giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter in spreading the content, Mr Porter said "this isn't just about the major platforms". He said there were examples of individuals at companies being prosecuted when they were directly linked to a failure, although it was not the usual course of action. "More often than not, the larger platforms of course, the punishment will be the fine, which is why we have made it 10 per cent of global turnovers, which is very serious," he said. Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus has said Labor will support the legislation despite reservations. Mr Dreyfus said it was rushed, poorly drafted and did not contain powers to jail social media executives.

Mr Porter rejected the criticism, saying the legislation will work and the alleged Christchurch attacker's exploitation of the internet warranted immediate action. Loading "What Facebook did was so appalling that I don't think Australians want to wait around for it to happen again while we commission an Australian Law Reform [Commission] report over 18 months," he said. Lobby group DIGI, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter and Amazon, said in a letter to the government that the new laws do "nothing to address hate speech, which was the fundamental motivation for the tragic Christchurch terrorist attacks". The group also said the laws encourage "proactive surveillance of internet users by companies, and of the vast volumes of user-generated content being uploaded at any given minute".

The legislation will be automatically reviewed after two years. It provides protections for use of relevant material if it "relates to a news report, or a current affairs report that ... is in the public interest" and is produced by a professional journalist. But media groups remain concerned they could be ensnared by the laws. News Corp, the majority owner of pay TV company Foxtel and a string of Australian newspapers, said it was concerned the legislation "criminalises" reporting of news. "We support the intent of the legislation. Making the digital platforms liable for what they make available to the world is overdue," it said. "However, this law goes beyond this. While we have worked with the Government to try to minimise the impact, this law risks criminalising news reporting and provides significant powers to the eSafety Commissioner to take down news content."