🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible 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 longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.