🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of 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 "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.