🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

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 Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented 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 warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.