🔗 Share this article

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

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.