🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling 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 order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, 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 focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video 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 resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating 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 probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies 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 required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.