🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block 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 comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

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. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.