🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.