🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting 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 "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also 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 no visible weapon. The company noted 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 overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued 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 did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.