🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief 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.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.