🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended 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, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across 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 instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.