🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the decision.

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

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued 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 content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.