🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

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

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested 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".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". 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 calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on 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 instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.