🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded 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 longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated 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 subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed 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 Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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