🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of 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 surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed 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. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies 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.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.