🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel 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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.