🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated 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 Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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