🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued 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 objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.