🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, 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 individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.