🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, 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. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

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

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.