🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible 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 more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.