The federal government says online platforms have a “responsibility” to block a US military execution from Australians, saying “no-one” should see it, amid cross-parliament calls for its broadcast to be restricted.

While the communications department warned media broadcasters must “act responsibly” in reporting on the scheduled execution by firing squad of Nidal Malik Hasan – which the Pentagon said would be livestreamed on 3 December – Australian federal government sources said there may be limitations in what it can do to order restrictions on an ally carrying out its own legal proceedings.

Hasan, a 56-year-old former army psychiatrist, was sentenced to death by a military jury in 2013 after being convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. Twelve of the 13 killed and 30 of the wounded were soldiers.

The US government said last week it would livestream his execution, but has not confirmed how or on what platform that stream would be carried.

The plan has drawn severe concern in the US and internationally, including among politicians, religious leaders and human rights advocates, with critics comparing the Trump administration to dictatorships in Iran and Afghanistan.

The United Nations’ office of the high commissioner for human rights warned on Friday that broadcasting the killing would amount to a public execution and “breach the absolute prohibition of torture”.

Hanson-Young, the Greens’ communications spokesperson, wrote to minister Anika Wells and the eSafety commission to urge they take “whatever action is necessary” to block the execution being broadcast in Australia or accessible online, calling it an “an unconscionable, abhorrent act”.

In comments to the ABC, Hanson-Young said: “I think this is incredibly shocking and barbaric, and Australians don’t want this on our screens.”

Her letter called on the government to take “pre-emptive” steps and warn the likes of YouTube, Meta, TikTok and streaming services that they should not allow the video to be available in Australia. Hanson-Young also said the eSafety commission should pursue regulatory action against “any large platforms” allowing the broadcast of the execution.

“Inaction on this will jeopardise millions of Australians’ online safety,” she wrote.

A spokesperson for the Albanese government noted the Trump administration said a final decision hadn’t been made, but voiced concerns over potential livestreaming.

“Vision of an execution being livestreamed here would be deeply distressing to many Australians. No one should be confronted with it, particularly younger Australians,” the spokesperson said.

“Australians rightly expect that the content won’t appear on their screens or in their teenagers’ feeds. Platforms have a responsibility to meet those expectations.”

The statement did not outline a penalty for hosting such content, or any proactive steps to prevent its broadcast.

Government sources said they were investigating what action could be taken. However, it was noted that such an execution – which is legal under the American justice system – would potentially be treated differently to videos showing unlawful killings or other serious crimes, which have been restricted by Australian regulators.

Calls to restrict the livestream found support across the political divide. Shadow communications minister Sarah Henderson called it an “abhorrent and violent act, saying she too had written to eSafety to ask whether federal regulations around broadcast of violent material would apply.

The shadow treasurer, Tim Wilson, said allowing the execution to be streamed would be “enormously problematic”, but added he had concerns about opening the door to “a censorship ban on the internet”.

One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce called the public nature of the execution “Roman amphitheatre stuff”, telling News 24: “I certainly don’t want any children, or anybody to be honest, to witness another human being, being shot by a firing squad.”

“If it’s going to be livestreamed, how are you going to do that without creating the artifice to be able to block content on the internet and create an online portal of censorship?” he told the ABC.

Under the Online Safety Act, the eSafety commissioner has powers to order the platforms to block Australians’ access to specific posts that contain vision that would be classified as “refused classification” under Australia’s classification code. Ultimately the office or the classifications board would need to determine if the footage – if it goes ahead – meets the bar of “crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults”.

The most high-profile example was when the eSafety commissioner ordered platforms to remove footage of the stabbing of a bishop in a Sydney church in 2024 – which Elon Musk’s X challenged. It resulted in a shift for eSafety away from requiring their removal to just blocking Australians’ access to the content.

eSafety again used the power last year to order the removal of videos of the shooting of the rightwing influencer Charlie Kirk. X challenged the classification of the video, and the classification review board reduced the rating of the video from refused classification to R18+.

A spokesperson for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts said large broadcasters like TV stations “must comply with rules about reporting on violent or distressing content.”

“It would be expected they exercise strong editorial control over their coverage and act responsibly in reporting on this matter,” a statement read.

The regulator has powers to seek multimillion-dollar fines against companies failing to prevent the proliferation of extreme violent material. The first test case for this power, against messaging platform Telegram, is due to be heard in the federal court in February next year.

eSafety also has powers to declare the broadcast as an “online crisis event” under laws that were passed in the wake of the Christchurch terror attack in 2019. The powers allow eSafety to direct internet service providers to block websites that are hosting graphic material that depicts a terrorist act or violent crime.

The debate over the execution comes amid Wells’ negotiations on a digital duty of care, which would place further obligations on big tech to protect their users from harmful content. The bill is being finalised this week amid discussions across the parliament, and the minister is expected to introduce the legislation later this week ahead of an address to the National Press Club on Thursday.