🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also 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. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

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 alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.