🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

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

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording 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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.