🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University 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 allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

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 train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted 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 camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.