🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing 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

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner 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 content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.