🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented 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.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board 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. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner 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 upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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