🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision 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 also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.