🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (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 assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage 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 required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.