🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case 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 recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.