🔗 Share this article

In 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 conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible 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 different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.