🔗 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 lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

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 footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded 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 longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices 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 distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.