🔗 Share this article

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

Background on the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of 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, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video 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 met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.