🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

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

Instead, platforms have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.