🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

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

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.