🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

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

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content 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 alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.