🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct 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. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members 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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms 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 "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.