🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.