🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined 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. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, 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 board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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