🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling 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 company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X 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 extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video 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 content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (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 event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across 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 apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.