🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

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. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders 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 distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.