🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested 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

Arguing its case, X asserted 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 victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between 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 video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms 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 had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.