The Platform X Wins Legal Challenge to Allow Viewing for Australians to Charlie Kirk Video Content

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.