🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content 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 could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

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 Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.