🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, 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 September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

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

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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