🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against 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 September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to 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 "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

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

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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