🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform 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, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

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

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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