🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended 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 victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.