🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible 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 could have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.