🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case 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 recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, 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 panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel 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 comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.