🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned 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 social media platform, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to 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 comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented 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 footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure 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 social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.