🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.