🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original 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 circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement 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, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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