🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across 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 instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.