🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer 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.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.