🔗 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 lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued 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, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos 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 benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

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

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