🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

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

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator 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 content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.