🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—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 footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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