🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate 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 train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "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 recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel 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 different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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