🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

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

As an alternative, the companies 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.