🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board 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 the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms 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 did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.