🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed 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".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board 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 met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.