🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.