🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.