🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

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

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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