🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video 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 content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator 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 required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.