🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

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

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across 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 instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.