🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

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 public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

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

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.