🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of 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."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage 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, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.