🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

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 attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content 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 different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.