🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating 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 the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, 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. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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