🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video 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". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression 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 implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.