🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

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

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.