🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling 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 Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.