🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared 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 content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.