🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

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

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated 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, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.