🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case 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 footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X welcomed 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 safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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