🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked 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, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded 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 alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some 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 engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.