🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform 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 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 different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed 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 committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.