🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video 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 excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film 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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

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 critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage 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 "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.