🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board 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 more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post 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 JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.