🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X 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, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content 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 alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, 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. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach 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.