🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted 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 excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible 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 alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.