🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. 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 excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between 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 content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to 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

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.