🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, 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.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.