🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing 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.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting 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 likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared 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 video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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