🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct 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. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy 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 objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". 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, "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 more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.