🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating 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 video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members 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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.