🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated 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 concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.