🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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