🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of 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 asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.