🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event 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.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some 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 parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.