🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question 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 bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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