🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.