🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of 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 train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended 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 bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

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

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.