🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator 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 a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, 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 individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

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

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms 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.