Elon Musk’s X Wins Appeal to Allow Australians Access to Charlie Kirk Shooting Footage
In a significant legal victory for social media platform X, owned by Elon Musk, Australian authorities have reversed a decision that blocked access to videos showing the shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The ruling came after X successfully appealed against a classification decision initiated by the country’s eSafety commissioner.
The controversy began following the tragic death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10. In response, the eSafety commissioner sought to have videos of the shooting classified under Australian law. Initially, the footage was deemed “refused classification,” a designation that allowed authorities to order social media platforms to block access for users in Australia.
X challenged the ruling on multiple fronts, contesting decisions on two separate Kirk videos. The platform also appealed a similar decision regarding a different video depicting a violent attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina. In both cases, X argued that the videos did not meet the criteria for excessive offensiveness or gratuitous content.
In its appeal regarding the Kirk footage, X maintained that the video showed only brief instances of violence and that no weapon was clearly visible. The footage itself was described as grainy, with camera movements quickly shifting focus from the victim to the surrounding crowd. The platform emphasized that the video provided a neutral, objective account of a public event of historical and political significance, sparking widespread public discussion. In drawing parallels, X cited the assassination footage of John F. Kennedy as a comparable example of publicly significant material.
The Australian classification review board ultimately sided with X. The majority concluded that, despite the severity of the event, the video was not exploitative or offensive enough to justify a refusal of classification. Instead, the board reclassified the videos as R18+, noting that more detailed or differently edited content might meet the threshold for restricted classification.
A minority on the review board disagreed, arguing that the content’s social media circulation suggested motivations of entertainment or personal gain, such as generating views or shares. They also pointed out that comparing the video to the Kennedy assassination footage was inappropriate, as that historic video had been released years after the event, once public emotions had subsided.
Following the decision, X expressed its satisfaction publicly, emphasizing the importance of free speech and public access to information. The platform stated that the ruling reinforces its commitment to providing users with content of significant public interest while upholding principles of transparency and information access.
The eSafety commissioner acknowledged the decision but highlighted that the R18+ rating imposes obligations on platforms to restrict access for users under 18. Social media companies must now ensure that age-appropriate controls are in place and that sensitive content is not visible to minors.
This ruling comes amid broader scrutiny of how social media platforms manage sensitive content. Recently, footage from other violent incidents, such as a terror attack at Bondi Beach, circulated online. While distressing, this content was not deemed to meet the threshold for refused classification. Platforms have been advised to implement content warnings, blur sensitive material, or use interstitials in accordance with their own policies.
The outcome of X’s appeal highlights the ongoing tension between content moderation, public access to information, and free speech. It underscores the challenges regulators and platforms face in balancing the public’s right to be informed with the need to shield vulnerable viewers from potentially harmful material.
As social media continues to play a central role in documenting major events, cases like the Kirk shooting footage appeal are likely to shape future discussions around classification, censorship, and the responsibilities of online platforms in Australia and beyond.
