Where a court makes an order, for example, requiring an Internet platform to block or remove content, it has several options. The order can be limited to content displayed locally, it can apply to that content globally, or something in-between. This – the matter of ‘scope of jurisdiction’ – is gaining increasing attention and was the central issue in two recent decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

In this article, I examine those two decisions. I then compare that to how Australian courts have dealt with scope of jurisdiction and I map out what we can learn from these cases. In doing so, I place emphasis on the importance of messaging and the need for judicial activism.

例如，在法院下达命令要求互联网平台阻止或删除内容的地方，法院有多种选择。该顺序可以限于本地显示的内容，也可以全局应用于该内容，也可以介于两者之间。这是“管辖范围”的问题，正在日益受到关注，并且是欧洲联盟法院（CJEU）最近的两项决定中的核心问题。

在本文中，我研究了这两个决定。然后，我将其与澳大利亚法院处理管辖范围的方式进行比较，并勾画出我们可以从这些案件中学到的东西。在此过程中，我强调消息传递的重要性和司法行动主义的必要性。