🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video 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 alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.