🔗 Share this article

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

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to 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 likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video 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 alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.