🔗 Share this article

In 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 conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. 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, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure 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 disturbing videos 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.

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