🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia 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 order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos 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 a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief 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.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members 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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

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

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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