🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted 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 focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.