🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing 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 issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

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 available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.