🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked 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, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of 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 available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

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

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident 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.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.