🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video 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 met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim 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 long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.