🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing 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 issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

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 officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

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

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage 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. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.