🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

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 engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.