🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

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 recording was low-quality 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 factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

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 resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on 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 warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.