🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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