🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

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—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.