🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged 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 Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented 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 footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording 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 gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms 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 "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.