🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated 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 Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question 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 bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

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

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, 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 upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.