🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision 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 company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

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 attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

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. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.