🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record 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 classification panel concluded 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.