🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented 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, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the decision.

"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 safeguarding these fundamental values."

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 ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.