🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer 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.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

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—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

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 camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies 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 required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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