🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content 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 online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

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

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

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.