🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting 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 Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video 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 long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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