🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After 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. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X 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 prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded 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. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.