🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated 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

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also 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. It was argued the recording was low-quality 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, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board 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 could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.