🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued 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 had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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