🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted 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 focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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