🔗 Share this article

In a significant 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 influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context 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 content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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