🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

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

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated 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, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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