🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality 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 objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement 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 released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.