🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling 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".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued 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 excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.