🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case 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.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel 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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing 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 invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices 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 had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.