🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued 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 offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared 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 content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.