🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

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 video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed 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. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

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

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.