🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video 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 individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. 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 videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

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

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.