🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

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

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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