🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with 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 Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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