🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of 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.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.