🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed 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 longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, 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. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.