🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority 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 longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.