🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

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 victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage 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 extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage 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 high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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