🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by 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 eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.