🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members 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 resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.