🔗 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 conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order social media companies 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 comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.