🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

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

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to 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 likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

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

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent 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 graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.