🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video 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 revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post 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 Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.