Australia

It is reasonable for courts and legislation to have powers to protect victims of crime and their families from distribution of images and video of their suffering. It is a secondary victimization. How far that protection should extend is up for public debate. Our courts have a limited jurisdiction and it is just a matter of fact that we can't enforce our domestic laws outside out borders anymore than an autocracy can suppress foreign reporting of their human rights abuses as much as they may try.

We broadly have two fairly obvious sets of international agreements that can get material taken down through most of the world. The first is child abuse material and the second is IP infringement.

Be a 24 year old Aussie battler with a part time job. Copy a Japanese manufacturer's shitty kid's game. You now owe $1.5 million dollars. Copyright is enforceable in practically every jurisdiction we care about.

Find the person who took the video, fairly compensate them for the rights, then issue a DMCA notice to Twitter. Job done. Censorship already exists. It is called IP rights and is enforced internationally through treaties.

I think we could have an argument that on the scale of stuff that should be censored to stuff that shouldn't, protecting adult victims of violent crime seems like it should fall somewhere between child abuse and IP rights. It is a straw man argument to lump it in with the censorship demanded by authoritarian states.