🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented 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 recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.