🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video 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 surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.