🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on 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 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.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel 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. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack 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.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.