🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal 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 North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended 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 focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video 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 the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.