🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

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 footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

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

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies 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 required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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