🔗 Share this article

Following 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 influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (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 years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across 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 advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.