🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content 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 different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.