🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

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

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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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