🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage 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 generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage 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 video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

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

Instead, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.