🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order 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 regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted 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 camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video 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 content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.