🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members 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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

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 parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.