🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

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 circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

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 gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.