🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative 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 panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (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 long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

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

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

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.