🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel 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)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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