🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal 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 also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.