🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content 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 national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video 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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.