🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.