🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.