🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

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

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement 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 made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content 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 line with their own content policies.