🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant 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 prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

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

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.