🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure 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. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.