🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, 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 focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board concluded 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

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 is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.