🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of 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 also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim 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 made public years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.