🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content 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.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, 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". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.