🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos 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 attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared 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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.