🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". 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 concluded that, "despite the terrible 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 longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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