🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. 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, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.