🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined 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.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event 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 concluded that, "despite the terrible 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 resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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