🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question 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 bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

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

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms 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.