🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued 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, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible 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 disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.