Online content submitted to the Classification Board by the eSafety Commissioner.
Assassination of Charlie Kirk
aka eSafety INV-2025-05224 (Classification Board title)
aka eSafety INV-2025-05226 (Classification Board title)
2025 / USA
On 11 September 2025, the Classification Board banned two clips of the ASSASSINATION OF CHARLIE KIRK. The footage depicts the shooting at Utah Valley University on 10 September.
ESAFETY INV-2025-05224 ran 00:19 and ESAFETY INV-2025-05226 ran 00:05.
On 10 October, X Corp applied to have the Refused Classification decision reviewed.
A three-member panel of the Classification Review Board met on 23 October and their decision was released on 5 December. Two of the panel agreed the rating should be R18+ (High impact violence, blood and injury detail, distressing scenes). The remaining member argued for retaining the RC rating.
There are several anomalies with the above procedure.
- The original RC ratings were never published in the National Classification Database.
- The Classification Review Board did not issue a media release asking if ‘…any individual or organisation wishes to apply for standing as an interested party to this review’.
- The Classification Review Board did not issue a media release announcing its decision.
- The names of the three-member panel are absent from the reports.
All have historically been standard procedure. Only the 5 July 2023 report for GENDER QUEER: A MEMOIR (2019) set a precedent by not naming the panel.
Full reports
The Classification Review Board reports for the 00:19 and 00:05 clips are essentially the same. They have been combined below, with the differences for the 00:05 clip highlighted in bold.
December 5, 2025
Applicant: X CorpBusiness: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film ESAFETY INV-2025-05224 (19″) [& ESAFETY INV-2025-05226 (5″)] as RC – Refused Classification.
Decision and reasons for decision
1. Decision
A majority of the Classification Review Board (the Review Board) classified the film ESAFETY INV-2025-05224 (19″) [& ESAFETY INV-2025-05226 (5″)] R18+ Restricted with the consumer advice ‘High impact violence, blood and injury detail, distressing scenes’. A minority of the Classification Review Board would have classified the film RC – Refused Classification.
2. Legislative provisions
The ‘Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995’ (Cth) (the Classification Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions.
The Review Board
Part 5 of the Classification Act outlines the provisions relevant to the Review Board and its procedures.
Section 42 of the Classification Act sets out the persons who may apply for review of a decision:
a) the Minister
b) the applicant for classification of the film, or for the likely classification of the film under section 33
c) the publisher of the film, or
d) a person aggrieved by the decision.
Section 43 sets out the conditions regarding the manner and form of applications for review, including time limits. Under section 44, the Review Board must deal with an application for review in the same way that the Classification Board deals with an application for classification of a film.
Classification of films under the Classification Act
Section 9, subject to section 9A, provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines. Section 9A requires that a film that advocates the doing of a terrorist act must be classified RC.
Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include:
a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and
b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film, and
c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character, and
d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.
The National Classification Code
Relevantly, the Films Table of the National Classification Code (the Code) provides that:
Films that depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified are to be classified RC.
Additionally, films which promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence are to be classified RC. Films (except RC films, and X18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see are to be classified R18+, and the Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible:
a) adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want
b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them
c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive
d) the need to take account of community concerns about:
(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and,
(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.
The Guidelines
Three essential principles underlie the use of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012 (the Guidelines), determined under section 12 of the Classification Act, the:
– importance of context
– assessment of impact, and
– the six classifiable elements—themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.
3. Procedure
The film ESAFETY INV-2025-05224 (19″) [& ESAFETY INV-2025-05226 (5″)] (the film) was classified by the Classification Board on 11 September 2025 as RC – Refused Classification.
On 10 October 2025, an application for a review was lodged by X Corp (the Applicant).
Three members of the Review Board met on 28 October 2025 to conduct the classification review of the film.
The Review Board determined that the application was a valid application.
There were no conflicts of interest noted by the members of the Review Board.
The Review Board was provided a written submission from the Applicant.
The Review Board was provided a written submission from the eSafety Commissioner.
The Review Board viewed the film.
The Review Board heard oral submissions from the Applicant.
The Review Board then considered the matter.
4. Evidence and other material taken into account
In reaching its decision, the Review Board considered the following:
(i) The film
(ii) The Applicant’s application for review
(iii) The Applicant’s written and oral submissions
(iv) eSafety’s written submission
(v) The relevant provisions in the Classification Act, the Code and the Guidelines, and
(vi) The Classification Board’s report dated 11 September 2025.
5. Synopsis
The film is a 19 second film depicting the fatal shooting of a man known to be Charlie Kirk, an American right-wing political activist, entrepreneur, and media personality, at a Utah university campus event.
The film is shot from the perspective of an event attendee. There is no diegetic sound. The only audio is Lauren Daigle’s song RESCUE, which plays over the footage.
The opening frame features a black background with two red text banners labelled ‘Breaking News’ at the top. In the centre, white warning text reads, ‘WARNING: NEXT VIDEO IS VERY GRAPHIC. SWIPE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT. ITS (sic) HEAVY” followed by three crying emojis. A red circle marked ‘WARNING: EXPLICIT CONTENT” is featured at the bottom of the screen.
At the two second mark, the film cuts to a side-angle view from the audience of Mr Kirk, filmed from the right of a raised stage. Mr Kirk is seated on a chair on stage. Several individuals lean against a nearby fence, and a number appear to be recording the event on their phones. Mr Kirk leans forward and lifts a microphone to his mouth. Without warning, Mr Kirk jolts upright and slumps to his left-hand side. Blood pours from his neck and streams down his white t-shirt, following an apparent shooting by an unseen assailant. The camera quickly pans away across the crowd, who are seen variously reacting in distress.
Throughout the film, a scrolling red banner mimicking a news broadcast appears at the top of the screen with the words ‘BREAKING NEWS’. A watermark of a verified user appears at the bottom of the screen, including a user profile picture and the handle, @IAMRICKYDIAZ. The film contains an excerpt of Lauren Daigle’s song RESCUE, with the lyrics, ‘I will send out an army to find you, in the middle of the darkest night, it’s true, I will rescue you.’
[ESAFETY INV-2025-05226]
The 5-second film depicts the fatal shooting of a man known to be Mr Charlie Kirk, an American right-wing political activist, entrepreneur, and media personality, at a Utah university campus event.The event is filmed from the audience at a relatively close range as Mr Kirk sits on a stage facing the crowd. Diegetic audio is heard. Mr Kirk leans forward and lifts a microphone to his mouth. A gunshot is heard. Mr Kirk jolts upright and slumps to his left-hand side. Blood flows from his neck. No weapon or assailant is visible. There are shouts of astonishment in the crowd. The film ends almost immediately after the moment of the bullet’s impact.
6. Findings on material questions of fact
The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or depictions of classifiable elements outlined in the Guidelines (listed in order of impact):
(a) Violence—the film contains a detailed depiction of real violence, apparently causing death. The impact of the depiction is high. The depiction can be accommodated in the R18+ – Restricted category.
(b) Themes—the film contains high impact themes of real violence, public safety, crime and death that can be accommodated in the R18+ – Restricted category.
(c) Language—the film contains mild language that can be accommodated at PG level.
(d) Drug Use—not present in the film.
(e) Sex—not present in the film.
(f) Nudity—not present in the film.
7. The application and submissions by the Applicant
The Applicant provided written submissions to the Review Board on 28 October 2025 and 3 November 2025. The Applicant submits that the film should not be Refused Classification. Under the Guidelines, RC is confined to cases involving gratuitous, exploitative, or offensive depictions of violence that have a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged, or detailed, or of real violence that are very detailed or have a high impact; high impact alone is insufficient. The Applicant cited ‘Brown v Members of Classification Review Board of Office of Film & Literature Classification’ (1998) 82 FCR 225, in support of the proposition that the depiction of crime or violence does not, of itself, promote, incite, or instruct such conduct for the purposes of item 1(c) of the Code.
In respect to the 19-second film, the Applicant submits that the violence is brief and singular, no weapon is visible, the footage is grainy, the movement of the camera away from the victim to the crowd quickly obscures the victim, and there are no effects or edits that increase impact. Accordingly, it is submitted that the depiction is not excessively detailed, prolonged or repeated, and is not gratuitous, exploitative or offensive.
The Applicant further submits that the film is a neutral, objective record of a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse; that context is relevant to whether the depiction offends reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified. By way of comparison, the Applicant refers to other widely known recordings (such as the SAIGON EXECUTION film and the ZAPRUDER film) to illustrate the contextual significance of the film culturally and politically, and to contrast between them on the basis of differences in the depiction’s proximity, duration, and graphic detail.
[ESAFETY INV-2025-05226]
In respect of the 5-second clip, the violence is momentary and singular, no weapon is seen, and the camera does not linger. While proximity and diegetic audio increase the impact, there are no visual stylistic amplifiers such as slow-motion, zooms, or replays. The Applicant notes that the crowd movement obscures Mr Kirk as soon as he is shot and characterises the film as a neutral, objective record of a notorious public event.On that basis, the Applicant contends that the correct outcome, at most, is classification at R18+, which gives effect to the Code principle that adults should be able to read, hear, see, and play what they want.
In addition to the written submission, the Applicant presented a verbal submission to the Classification Review Board on 28 October 2025, in support of the written submission. On 3 November 2025, the Applicant provided a statement from X’s Safety Compliance Lead regarding the display of “sensitive” material on X and the protections that exist for X users under 18 years of age. The Applicant also provided further written submissions in which they addressed:
– whether the Review Board should consider the issue of minors viewing R18+ rated material on X,
– whether the Review Board needed to have “strong reasons” to depart from the original classification decision, and
- – whether the Applicant had received complaints relating to the film.
8. The submission by the eSafety Commissioner
The eSafety Commissioner provided a written submission to the Review Board on 23 October 2025, supporting the Board’s RC – Refused Classification decision.
The eSafety Commissioner characterises the footage captured within the film as high quality footage and at close proximity (only a few metres away from the incident), showing the moment of impact and copious blood contrasted against a white shirt. The Commissioner argues this is a gratuitous and offensive depiction of real violence with a very high level of impact.
The Commissioner argues that the threshold for RC is met under the Guidelines because the depictions are gratuitous and offensive and reach a very high degree of impact.
[ESAFETY INV-2025-05226]
The eSafety Commissioner supports the Board’s decision to classify the film RC – Restricted.The eSafety Commissioner contends that the clip gratuitously depicts the event of a graphic public murder.
The Commissioner makes the following observations about the nature of the film:
– That the film depicts a real-life murder,
– That it is from a front-on angle,
– That the footage is proximate to the victim and the viewer is able to see the impact of the bullet, the wound and his bleeding, and
– The film captures audio from the site of the filmed event including a gunshot and people heard yelling “Charlie” and the crowd’s general distress.
The Commissioner submits that this clip with audible gunshot and distress constitutes a graphic depiction of real violence at a very high degree of impact, that the scene is offensive to reasonable adults, and that, notwithstanding its brevity, the combination of proximity and audio renders it excessively impactful, warranting a refusal of classification.
9. Reasons for Decision
9(a) – Violence
Pursuant to the Guidelines, films will be Refused Classification if they include or contain “gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed:
(ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed, or which have a high impact.”
In relation to (i), Review Board considers that: the depiction of violence has a high, but not very high, degree of impact.
The depiction has a high degree of impact because it is a real depiction of violence resulting in death.
In the Review Board’s view, the depiction does not have a very high degree of impact because it lacks detail. The Review Board agrees with the eSafety Commissioner that the depiction contains some detail, including the victim’s jolting reaction to the bullet impact, and blood splashing across his white T-shirt. However, the Review Board does not consider the depiction to be excessively detailed, and notes factors significantly limiting or obscuring detail such as, the brevity of the depiction (2 seconds of a 19-second film), the image quality, the distance of the camera in the crowd from the victim, and the lack of diegetic sound. The Review Board also notes that the film appears to be a single, unedited shot and features no accentuation techniques such as close-ups, replays or slow motion.
The Review Board notes that, while the eSafety Commissioner has described the footage as ‘proximate’ to the victim, the Review Board does not find the camera to be very near, and is sufficiently far enough away from the subject to obscure much of the impactful detail.
The violence occurs in single, apparently unedited, shot that cannot be described as excessively frequent.
The depiction of violence is brief and is not excessively prolonged.
[ESAFETY INV-2025-05226]
In the Review Board’s view, the depiction does not have a very high degree of impact because it lacks detail. The Review Board agrees with the eSafety Commissioner that the depiction contains some detail, including the gush of blood from the victim’s neck, the sound of the gunshot, and the reactions of the crowd. However, the Board does not consider this to be excessively detailed. The camera placement, image quality, and brevity of the film (5 seconds) obscures most of the detail. The Review Board notes that, while the eSafety Commissioner has described the footage as ‘proximate’ to the victim, the Review Board does not find the camera to be very near and is sufficiently far to obscure much impactful detail.In the Review Board’s view, the depiction of violence is not ‘excessively frequent or prolonged’. The attack is depicted in a single, unedited shot and therefore cannot be described as excessively frequent. The film is a 5-second clip; the remaining footage shows brief aftermath (bystander movement, the victim’s collapse) without lingering or focusing on injury detail. On that basis, the depiction is brief and not excessively prolonged.
For these reasons, the Review Board is not satisfied that the film contains depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact, or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed.
In relation to (ii), the Review Board notes the following:
The film contains a depiction of real violence. The depiction contains some detail but is not, for the reasons stated above, very detailed. The depiction has a high impact because it is a depiction of real violence resulting in death. The Review Board is therefore satisfied that the film contains depictions of real violence which have a high impact.
The Review Board then considered whether the depiction was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification.
The Review Board considers that the film depicts an event that was the subject of widespread news reporting and public discourse.
Aside from the abovementioned warning disclaimer that opens the film, the film consists of a single, apparently unedited depiction of the shooting. The film plays with a scrolling banner at the top of the screen with the words “BREAKING NEWS” and a user watermark. Laren Daigle’s song RESCUE plays over the top. In the Review Board’s view, these other elements do not increase the impact of the depiction of violence.
The film does not use accentuation techniques which increase impact such as the use of close-ups or slow motion. The shooter and weapon are not shown. The depiction of violence is not prolonged or repeated.
Notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event, the depiction itself is not gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification because of the lack of detail. In the Review Board’s view, the level of detail is not so graphic that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.
The Review Board notes that a more detailed depiction of the same event, including one with editing, sound effects or commentary, may be found to be gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification.
The Review Board also notes that films classified R18+ Restricted may contain material which is high in impact and which is offensive to sections of the adult community.
The Review Board considers that the film requires a consumer advice warning that it contains ‘High impact violence, blood and injury detail, distressing scenes’.
9(b) – Themes
The Review Board finds that the themes of violence, crime and threats to public safety illustrated by a real depiction of violence and death is high in impact and can be accommodated in the R18+ Restricted category. However, the Review Board does not consider a consumer advice warning for ‘Adult Themes’ necessary given the advice for violence and distressing scenes.
9(c) – Section 9A considerations
The Review Board considered s9A of the Code, which requires a film to be classified RC if it advocates the doing of a terrorist act (within the meaning imported from the Criminal Code). The Review Board unanimously finds that the film does not counsel, promote nor urge the doing of a terrorist act, provide instruction on the doing of such an act, or praise terrorist acts in circumstances where such praise might encourage imitation. The film is a brief record of a real-world incident and is not propaganda for terrorism. No party contended otherwise. Accordingly, the Review Board finds that the film does not breach s9A.
9(d) – Section 11 considerations
Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the Review Board consider the matters identified in that section together in the context of the film as a whole, and this may require weighing one consideration against another.
a) standards of morality, decency, and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and
The Review Board accepts that reasonable adults will regard the violence depicted as abhorrent, and many will find the footage distressing. However, the level of detail in the depiction is not so graphic that it offends against community standards to the extent that it should not be classified. In the Review Board’s view, reasonable adults ought to be able to watch the film if they wish, with appropriate warning.
The Review Board also notes that the Applicant has not received any reports from Australian users flagging the content as containing class 1 material under the Social Media Industry Code, although the Applicant has received complaints from some non-Australian users.
b) literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film, and
The film is a record of what has become a well-known public event that attracted significant public discussion. As such, it has informational and public-interest value in contemporaneous reporting and civic debate about gun violence. That context weighs against a conclusion that the depiction is gratuitous, exploitative or offensive.
c) general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character, and
The film’s general character is a documentary record. It is not medical, legal or scientific in nature. It is not edited or stylised to sensationalise the violence (as noted above, it contains no slow-motion, replays, or close-ups). In the Review Board’s view, this character mitigates impact and supports an R18+ Restricted classification.
d) persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.
The film was published on the X platform. The likely audience of the film includes users of X who encounter the film on their X feed and others who access this particular film without an account.
The film has been published elsewhere on the internet and is likely available to anyone who has access to the internet, including minors. In the Review Board’s view, to refuse classification out of concern that minors may see a film classified R18+ would make the R18+ classification meaningless. Allowing this consideration to influence a classification decision is contrary to the section of the Code specifying that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want.
In the Review Board’s view, a consideration of these matters together, supports an R18+ (Restricted) classification with appropriate consumer advice.
9(e) – Section 3, Item 1(c) Consideration
Section 3, Item 1(c) asks the Review Board to consider whether the film promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence.
In the Review Board’s view, merely depicting violence is not to promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime and violence. The film contains no elements which encourage a similar attack or teach a viewer how to go about it.
10. Minority View
A minority of the Review Board is of the opinion that the film contains a gratuitous, exploitative, and offensive depiction of real violence and bloody injury detail that has a high degree of impact, is contrary to the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, is likely to cause outrage or extreme disgust, and is not required for the purposes of facilitating public or political commentary.
The filmmaker has edited raw footage of an actual fatal shooting death into a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views) for distribution to users of a social media platform, despite the fact that children and other vulnerable members of the community comprise a large percentage of the audience. To heighten the impact of an already impactful event, the filmmaker begins the film with an attention-grabbing text that has the effect of arousing curiosity and encouraging the viewer to keep watching rather than authentically advising the viewer against what they are about to see or the graphic nature of the content that follows. The use of a melancholy song over the footage allows the filmmaker to express their opinion on the incident by increasing the emotive tone by creating a dissonance between the softness of the music and the severity of the violence. The overall effect increases the impact of violence rather than mitigate or diminish any impact.
A minority of the Review Board rejects the Applicant’s argument that this film holds the same historical significance as the ZAPRUDER and SAIGON EXECUTION films. The ZAPRUDER film is the only known film to have captured the assassination of President John F Kennedy in full. It was not released to the public until 15 years after the incident, once emotions around the matter had subsided, which supports the argument that the public does not need to watch video of a murder to form an understanding of what happened, for the matter to cause a public response of outrage or disgust, or for the matter to prompt public or political commentary.
[ESAFETY INV-2025-05226]
A minority of the Review Board is of the opinion that the film contains a gratuitous and offensive depiction of real violence and bloody injury detail that has a very high degree of impact. The film depicts a real-life fatal shooting in a way that is contrary to the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, in a manner that is likely to cause outrage or extreme disgust, and in a manner not required for the purposes of facilitating public or political commentary.The incident is captured so close to the subject that the bullet’s trajectory and impact are clearly audible. The film’s tight focus on the subject shows the victim’s body jerking violently from the impact of the bullet, a rapid and significant blood loss exiting from the victim’s neck, the victim’s face and arms paling from exsanguination, and the victim’s body slumping to the left.
The short duration of the depicted incident, which lasts approximately 2 seconds, heightens the shock, brutality, and distress of the film. Likewise, the dark claret colour of the gushing blood is both alarming and gruesome. It is reasonable to assume that most members of the community would not have seen a shooting before viewing this film and may not properly understand the impact of such trauma on the human body. The minority of the Review Board considers that the psychological effect of witnessing such a brutal and sudden event, especially given that the camera is in such close proximity to the victim, would be highly impactful on most members of the community.
In the minority of the Review Board’s opinion, this kind of matter is consistent with the definition of films that will be Refused Classification in the guidelines, being films that contain “gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of (i) violence with a very high degree of impact which are excessively frequent, prolonged, or detailed; or (ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact. The film is also contrary to the principles of the Code that state (a) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; (b) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; and (c) (ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.
The ZAPRUDER film is grainy and shot from a significant distance from the subject, meaning that very little detail is visible. The ZAPRUDER film does not contain audio, which means that, unlike ESAFETY INV-2025-05224 [& ESAFETY INV-2025-05226], the gunshots, bullet trajectory, bullet impacts, crowd reaction, and other emotive audio such as the acceleration of the motorcade, cannot be heard.
In addition to being the only film of its kind in existence, the ZAPRUDER film serves as an important public record for myriad other reasons including that it became an important piece of evidence in the Warren Commission hearings and other subsequent investigations into the assassination, and because it disrupted the ‘lone assassin’ theory and changed the public’s view around the circumstances of the incident and how police and government had handled the incident.
The ZAPRUDER film holds such importance as a historical document that it was selected for preservation by the Unites States National Film Registry for its cultural, historic, and aesthetic significance. To date, ESAFETY INV-2025-05224 [& ESAFETY INV-2025-05226] has not received such high honours or recognition.
The SAIGON EXECUTION film depicts a South Vietnamese police chief shooting a Viet Cong captain. A minority of the Review Board considers that few people have viewed the film version of this event and are not aware of its existence. A photograph of the execution, captured by Associated Press journalist, Eddie Adams, is widely known and widely regarded as an important historical document that changed public perception of the Vietnam War. The image earned Eddie Adams the 1968 World Press Photo of the Year and the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography. The image captured by Eddie Adams does not depict any blood or injury detail, but the positioning of the gun in the frame, the expression on the victim’s face the wincing expression of a nearby solider, the apparently filthy clothing worn by the victim, and the fact that the victim appears to be handcuffed, are all factors that combine to purvey the horror and brutality of the death. The video version depicts the entire incident and contains blood and injury detail; however, while sickening, watching the video version does not significantly increase the level of impact caused by viewing the image. It is not necessary to view the video to understand what has happened.
In comparison, ESAFETY INV-2025-05224 does not hold any similar significance to either the ZAPRUDER film or the SAIGON EXECUTION film. The ESAFETY INV-2025-05224 film is an edited version of a significant event and not raw footage. It is one of dozens of videos that captures the shooting, and does not offer any new or unique understanding, value, or perspective of the event. The film was released shortly after the Charlie Kirk shooting, so cannot be argued to hold historical significance.
[ESAFETY INV-2025-05226]
In comparison, ESAFETY INV-2025-05226 does not hold any similar significance to either the ZAPRUDER film or the SAIGON EXECUTION film. The ESAFETY INV-2025-05226 film was released shortly after the Charlie Kirk shooting, so cannot be argued to hold historical significance, and it does not offer any further understanding of the event.A minority of the Review Board considers that if this depiction of the Charlie Kirk shooting did not exist, it would not affect the understanding of the matter in any way and would not change the public’s response of outrage and disgust that emerged following the incident.
Given the exploitative nature of the ESAFETY INV-2025-05224, the intended audience, the high-impact content, and the lack of any cultural or historical significance of the film, a minority of the Board is of the opinion that the film should be Refused Classification in accordance with Item 1(a) of the Code.
[ESAFETY INV-2025-05226]
Given the gratuitous and offensive nature of the ESAFETY INV-2025-05226, the high impact injury detail, the lack of any cultural or historical significance of the film, and the intended audience (users of the internet), a minority of the Board is of the opinion that the film should be Refused Classification in accordance with Item 1(a) of the Code.11. Summary
Having applied s9 of the Act (the Code and Guidelines) and considered the matters in s11 together, the Review Board finds that the film’s depiction of real violence is high in impact. However, the depiction is brief, distanced, apparently unedited, and contains no accentuation techniques to increase impact such as the use of close-ups or slow motion. In the Review Board’s view, taking into account community standards, the depiction is not gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification, and should be classified R18+ with a consumer advice of ‘High impact violence, blood and injury detail, distressing scenes’. The film does not promote, incite, or instruct crime or violence (Code item 1(c)), and does not breach s9A (terrorist advocacy).
– Classification Review Board report
Killing of Iryna Zarutska
aka eSafety INV-2025-05242 (Classification Board title)
2025 / USA
On 16 September 2025, the Classification Board banned a 00:28 clip of the KILLING OF IRYNA ZARUTSKA. The footage depicts her being murdered by Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr. in Charlotte, North Carolina, on 22 August.
On 13 October, X Corp lodged an application to have the Refused Classification decision reviewed.
A three-member panel of the Classification Review Board met on 28 October and its decision was released on 5 December. Two of the panel agreed the rating should be R18+ (High impact violence, distressing scenes). The remaining member believed the RC rating should be retained.
See the ASSASSINATION OF CHARLIE KIRK (2025) entry for anomalies in the above procedure.
Full report
December 5, 2025
Applicant: X CorpBusiness: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film ESAFETY INV-2025-05242 (28″) as RC – Refused Classification.
Decision and reasons for decision
1. Decision
A majority of the Classification Review Board (the Review Board) classified the film ESAFETY INV-2025-05242 (28″) R18+ Restricted with the consumer advice ‘High impact violence, distressing scenes’. A minority of the Classification Review Board would have classified the film RC – Refused Classification.
2. Legislative provisions
The ‘Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995’ (Cth) (the Classification Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions.
The Review Board
Part 5 of the Classification Act outlines the provisions relevant to the Review Board and its procedures.
Section 42 of the Classification Act sets out the persons who may apply for review of a decision:
a) the Minister
b) the applicant for classification of the film, or for the likely classification of the film under section 33
c) the publisher of the film, or
d) a person aggrieved by the decision.
Section 43 sets out the conditions regarding the manner and form of applications for review, including time limits. Under section 44, the Review Board must deal with an application for review in the same way that the Classification Board deals with an application for classification of a film.
Classification of films under the Classification Act
Section 9, subject to section 9A, provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines. Section 9A requires that a film that advocates the doing of a terrorist act must be classified RC.
Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include:
a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and
b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film, and
c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character, and
d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.
The National Classification Code
Relevantly, the Films Table of the National Classification Code (the Code) provides that:
Films that depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified are to be classified RC.
Additionally, films which promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence are to be classified RC. Films (except RC films, and X18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see are to be classified R18+, and the Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible:
a) adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want
b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them
c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive
d) the need to take account of community concerns about:
(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and,
(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.
The Guidelines
Three essential principles underlie the use of the ‘Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012’ (the Guidelines), determined under section 12 of the Classification Act, the:
– importance of context
– assessment of impact, and
– the six classifiable elements—themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.
3. Procedure
The film ESAFETY INV-2025-05242 (28″) (the film) was classified by the Classification Board on 16 September 2025 as RC – Refused Classification.
On 13 October 2025, an application for a review was lodged by X Corp (the Applicant).
Three members of the Review Board met on 28 October 2025 to conduct the classification review of the film.
The Review Board determined that the application was a valid application.
There were no conflicts of interest noted by the members of the Review Board.
The Review Board was provided a written submission from the Applicant.
The Review Board was provided a written submission from the eSafety Commissioner.
The Review Board viewed the film.
The Review Board heard oral submissions from the Applicant.
The Review Board then considered the matter.
4. Evidence and other material taken into account
In reaching its decision, the Review Board considered the following:
(i) The film
(ii) The Applicant’s application for review
(iii) The Applicant’s written and oral submissions
(iv) eSafety’s written submission
(v) The relevant provisions in the Classification Act, the Code and the Guidelines, and
(vi) The Classification Board’s report dated 16 September 2025.
5. Synopsis
The film is an approximately 28-second recording taken aboard a passenger train in which a male passenger attacks a female passenger.
A fixed overhead CCTV camera captures a young woman with a man sitting immediately behind her. The man attacks the woman in a brutal and seemingly unprovoked assault with a weapon. The weapon is understood to be a knife that has been digitally blurred so that all that can be seen is a downward motion consistent with a stabbing motion. The victim recoils into her seat then collapses onto her left side before falling into the footwell. A pool of blood is visible on her vacated seat and adjacent surfaces and increases as the clip continues. Bystanders begin to react and move as the assailant departs the immediate frame. There are no edits, no slow-motion, no zooms, and no replay. There is some audio, but it is mostly unclear.
The female passenger is known to be a person named Iryna Zarutska.
6. Findings on material questions of fact
The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or depictions of classifiable elements outlined in the Guidelines (listed in order of impact):
(a) Violence—the film contains a detailed depiction of real violence, causing death. The impact of the depiction is high. The depiction can be accommodated in the R18+ – Restricted category.
(b) Themes—the film contains high impact themes of real violence, public safety, crime and death that can be accommodated in the R18+ – Restricted category.
(c) Language—the film contains mild language that can be accommodated at PG level.
(d) Drug Use—not present in the film.
(e) Sex—not present in the film.
(f) Nudity—not present in the film.
7. The application and submissions by the Applicant
The Applicant provided written submissions to the Review Board on 28 October 2025 and 3 November 2025.
The Applicant submits that the film should not be Refused Classification. Under the Guidelines, RC is confined to cases involving gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of violence that have a very high degree of impact, or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed, or of real violence that are very detailed or have a high impact; high impact alone is insufficient. The Applicant cited ‘Brown v Members of Classification Review Board of Office of Film & Literature Classification (1998)’ 82 FCR 225, in support of the proposition that the depiction of crime or violence does not, of itself, promote, incite, or instruct such conduct for the purposes of item 1(c) of the Code.
The Applicant submits that the release of footage depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska prompted widespread political discussion and public debate on a range of issues including violence against women, mental health, and policies of crime. This ultimately led to the North Carolina General Assembly passing ‘Iryna’s Law’ (NC H307) on 3 October 2025, effecting various reforms to the state’s criminal justice system.
The Applicant contends that the most appropriate classification is R18+ (at the highest) which gives effect to the Code’s principle that adults should be able to read, hear, see, and play what they want.
On 28 October 2025, the Applicant presented oral submissions to the Classification Review Board in support of its written submission. On 3 November 2025, X Corp provided a statement from X’s Safety Compliance Lead regarding the display of “sensitive” material on X and the protections that exist for X users under 18 years of age. The Applicant also provided further written submissions in which they addressed:
– whether the Review Board should consider the issue of minors viewing R18+ rated material on X
– whether the Review Board needed to have “strong reasons” to depart from the original classification decision, and
– whether the Applicant had received complaints relating to the film.
8. The submission by the eSafety Commissioner
The eSafety Commissioner supports the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film RC – Restricted.
The eSafety Commissioner contends that the clip gratuitously depicts the event of a graphic public murder.
The Commissioner makes the following observations about the nature of the film:
– That the film depicts a real-life murder,
– That it is detailed,
– That it is in close proximity to the violence,
– That (despite the blur), the viewer can clearly see the event at close range and is not prevented from understanding what has occurred,
– The film depicts blood coming from the body of the deceased and onto her seat, and
– The blur is removed from the footage following the attack and the deceased is seen to lose consciousness surrounded by blood.
The Commissioner submits that the film depicts a level of detail of the event which is not required for the purposes of facilitating public commentary. In particular, the Commissioner submits that the film is gratuitous because it depicts the entirety of the murder, rather than stopping prior to the attack or more completely blurring or editing the stabbing.
9. Reasons for Decision
9(a) – Violence
Pursuant to the Guidelines, films will be Refused Classification if they include or contain “gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed:
(ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact.”
In relation to (i), the Review Board considers that: the depiction of violence has a high, but not very high, degree of impact.
The depiction has a high degree of impact because it is a real depiction of violence resulting in death.
In the Review Board’s view, the depiction does not have a very high degree of impact because it lacks detail. The Review Board agrees with the eSafety Commissioner that the depiction contains some detail, including the striking motion made by the attacker, the victim’s blood on the seat, the blood spatter on the floor, and the victim’s shocked expression as she collapses after the attack. However, the Review Board does not consider the depiction to be excessively detailed, noting factors that significantly limit or obscure detail, such as the brevity of the depiction, the blurring of the attack so that the weapon and stabbing impacts are obscured, and the distance of the camera from the victim – the vantage appears to be a fixed CCTV camera from a moderate distance. The Review Board also notes that the film appears to be a single, unedited shot that features no accentuation techniques such as close-ups, replays, or slow motion.
In the Review Board’s view, the depiction of violence is not ‘excessively frequent or prolonged’ for the purposes of subparagraph (i). The attack is depicted in a single, unedited shot and therefore cannot be described as excessively frequent. The assault phase is a small part of the 28-second clip; the remaining footage shows brief aftermath (bystander movement, the victim’s collapse) without lingering or focusing on injury.
In relation to subparagraph (ii), the Review Board notes that the film contains a depiction of real violence. The depiction contains some detail but is not, for the reasons stated above, excessively or very detailed. The depiction has a high impact because it is a depiction of real violence resulting in death.
The Review Board is therefore satisfied that the film contains a depiction of real violence which has a high impact.
The Review Board then considered whether the depiction was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification.
The Review Board’s noted that the film depicts an event that was the subject of widespread news reporting and public discourse.
As noted above, the attack itself is obscured by blurring, and the film does not use accentuation techniques that increase impact such as the use of close-ups or slow motion. The depiction of violence is not prolonged or repeated, and the film does not contain any commentary or opinion on the depicted event.
The Review Board acknowledges eSafety’s concerns about the graphic depiction of a public murder and agrees that this kind of material is unsuitable for minors. However, the Review Board considers that the film is a factual record of a significant event that is not presented in a gratuitous, exploitative or offensive manner to the extent that it should be classified RC. In part, this is due to fact that the images appear to have been captured by CCTV, a system that is widely understood to be a means of detecting public incidents and disturbances for the purpose of—among other things—identifying victims and offenders. The camera is a chance observer of the event, and not an active participant in the way that might be attributed to a film camera deliberately positioned to record a planned scene, for example.
In the Review Board’s view, the level of violence and injury detail is not so graphic that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.
The Review Board considered that the depiction was not gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification. The Review Board notes that a more detailed depiction of the same event, including one with no blurring and/or with editing, sound effects or commentary, could be found to be gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification.
The Review Board also notes that films classified R18+ Restricted may contain material which is high in impact and which is offensive to sections of the adult community.
The Review Board considers that the film requires a consumer advice warning that it contains ‘High impact violence, distressing scenes’. 9(b) – Themes
The Review Board finds that the themes of violence, crime and threats to public safety illustrated by a real depiction of violence and death, is high in impact and can be accommodated in the R18+ – Restricted category. However, the Review Board does not consider a consumer advice warning for ‘Adult Themes’ necessary given the advice for violence and distressing scenes.
9(c) – Section 9A considerations
The Review Board considered s9A of the Code, which requires a film to be classified RC if it advocates the doing of a terrorist act (within the meaning imported from the Criminal Code). The Review Board unanimously finds that the film does not counsel, promote nor urge the doing of a terrorist act, provide instruction on the doing of such an act, or praise terrorist acts in circumstances where such praise might encourage imitation. The film is a brief record of a real-world incident and is not propaganda for terrorism. No party contended otherwise. Accordingly, the Review Board finds that the film does not breach s9A.
9(d) – Section 11 considerations
Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the Review Board consider the matters identified in that section together in the context of the film as a whole, and this may require weighing one consideration against another.
a) standards of morality, decency, and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and
The Review Board accepts that reasonable adults will regard the violence depicted as abhorrent, and many will find the footage distressing. However, the level of detail in the depiction is not so graphic that it offends against community standards to the extent that it should not be classified. In the Review Board’s view, reasonable adults ought to be able to watch the film if they wish, with appropriate warning.
The Review Board also notes that the Applicant has not received any reports from Australian users flagging the content as containing class 1 material under the Social Media Industry Code, although the Applicant has received complaints from some non-Australian users.
b) literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film, and
The film is a record of what has become a well-known public event that attracted significant public discussion. As such, it has informational and public-interest value in contemporaneous reporting and civic debate about mental health and violence. That context weighs against a conclusion that the depiction is gratuitous, exploitative or offensive.
c) general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character, and
The film’s general character is a documentary record. It is not medical, legal or scientific in nature. It is not edited or stylised to sensationalise the violence (as noted above, it contains no slow-motion, replays, or close-ups). In the Review Board’s view, this character mitigates its impact and supports an R18+ Restricted classification.
d) persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.
The film was published on the X platform. The likely audience of the film includes users of X who encounter the film on their X feed and others who access this film without an account.
The film has been published elsewhere on the internet and is likely available to anyone who has access to the internet, including minors. The Review Board considers that, to refuse classification out of concern that minors may see a film classified R18+ would make the R18+ classification meaningless. Allowing this consideration to influence a classification decision is contrary to s 1(a) of the Code that adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want.
In the Review Board’s view, a consideration of these matters together, supports an R18+ (Restricted) classification with appropriate consumer advice.
9(e) – Section 3, Item 1(c) Consideration
Section 3, Item 1(c) asks the Review Board to consider whether the film promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence.
In the Review Board’s view, and consistent with the authority of Brown v Members of Classification Review Board of Office of Film & Literature Classification (1998) 82 FCR 225, merely depicting violence is not to promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime and violence. The film contains no elements which encourage a similar attack or teach a viewer how to go about it. The blurring of the footage of the attack supports this conclusion.
10. Minority View
A minority of the Review Board is of the opinion that the film contains a gratuitous, exploitative and offensive depiction of real and bloody violence that has a very high degree of impact. The minority considers that this film depicts a real-life fatal stabbing in a way that is contrary to the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and in a manner that is likely to cause outrage or extreme disgust. The attack is sudden, brutal and shocking, and occurs without warning in a familiar public space, that is, public transport. Prior to the attack, the victim can be sitting quietly and keeping to herself. She does nothing to provoke or invite any attention. When the attack begins, she is caught entirely by surprise, appearing small, innocent, and vulnerable compared to her attacker. She does not seem to comprehend what is happening and never gets the chance to defend herself or call for help. The viewer shares her confusion and disbelief, which evolves into a sense of helplessness and horror once it becomes apparent that the attack is fatal. The film is challenging viewing for myriad reasons, not least the realisation that the viewer has (likely unwittingly) witnessed the murder of someone who appears innocent, unarmed, and alone. The film ends with the victim slumping into the footwell of the transport, and it is these images that linger as an undignified and frightening way for a life to end.
Hence, a minority of the Review Board believes that the high degree of impact is caused by both the brutality of the attack—albeit not excessively frequent, prolonged nor detailed—combined with the effect the incident has on the viewer as comprehension slowly dawns. In colloquial terms, it is something that cannot be unseen.
A minority of the Review Board acknowledges that real-world legislative change has been implemented as a result of the incident; however, is of the opinion that it is not necessary for members of the public to view this film to understand the incident or to facilitate further public or political commentary.
The incident is captured on fixed CCTV situated close to the subject. The weapon has been blurred in the film, but this does not disguise the aggressive stabbing actions, the brutality of the attack, the location of the impacts on the victim, and the victim’s reaction of shock, fear, and distress. After the attack, the perpetrator hovers near the victim in a threatening manner that further exploits the victim and suggests that the attack may continue. The minority of the Review Board also recognises that releasing CCTV footage of members of the public without their consent may be considered an exploitative act.
In the minority of the Review Board’s opinion, this kind of matter accords with the section of the Guidelines that states, films will be Refused Classification if they contain “gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of (i) violence with a very high degree of impact which are excessively frequent, prolonged, or detailed; or (ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact. The film is contrary to the principles of the Code that state (a) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; (b) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; and (c) (ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner”.
Given the highly impactful nature of the incident, and the intended audience (users of the internet), a minority of the Review Board is of the opinion that the film should be Refused Classification in accordance with Item 1(a) of the Code.
11. Summary
Having applied s9 of the Act (the Code and Guidelines) and considered the matters in s11 together, the Review Board finds that the film’s depiction of real violence is high in impact. However, the depiction is very brief, obscured by blurring, distanced, apparently unedited, and contains no accentuation techniques to increase impact such as the use of close-ups or slow motion. The Review Board considers, taking into account community standards, that the depiction is not gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification, and it should be classified R18+ with a consumer advice of ‘High impact violence, distressing scenes’.
The film does not promote, incite, or instruct crime or violence (Code item 1(c)), and does not breach s9A (terrorist advocacy).
– Classification Review Board report
Bondi Beach shooting
aka eSafety INV-2025-05224 (Classification Board title)
2025 / Australia
On 19 February 2026, the Classification Board banned a 0.1:13 clip from the aftermath of the BONDI BEACH SHOOTING. The footage depicts the victims of the 14 December 2025 massacre.
On 7 April, X Corp applied to have the Refused Classification decision reviewed.
A three-member panel of the Classification Review Board met on 24 April and released their report on 25 May. Two members agreed with the Refused Classification decision. The remaining member argued for an R18+ (High impact violence, Blood and injury detail, Distressing scenes).
Several anomalies exist regarding the above procedure.
- The original RC ratings were never published in the National Classification Database.
- The Classification Review Board did not issue a media release asking if ‘…any individual or organisation wishes to apply for standing as an interested party to this review’.
- The Classification Review Board did not issue a media release announcing its decision.
Beginning with GENDER QUEER: A MEMOIR (2019) and continuing with the ASSASSINATION OF CHARLIE KIRK (2025) and KILLING OF IRYNA ZARUTSKA (2025), the Classification Review Board began issuing ‘controversial’ reports without details of the panel members. In this instance, it reverted to standard practice and named the three-member panel.
Full report
May 25, 2026
Members:
Alice Yan (Convenor)
Damien Power
Matthew SalgoApplicant: X Corp
Business: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film ESAFETY INV-2026-01286, RC (Refused Classification).
Decision and reasons for decision
1. Decision
A majority of the Classification Review Board (the Review Board) classified the film ESAFETY INV-2026-01286 (the film) Refused Classification. A minority of the Review Board would have classified the film R 18+.
2. Legislative provisions
The ‘Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995’ (Cth) (the Classification Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions.
The Review Board
Part 5 of the Classification Act outlines the provisions relevant to the Review Board and its procedures.
Section 42 of the Classification Act sets out the persons who may apply for review of a decision:
(a) the Minister
(b) the applicant for classification of the film, or the likely classification of the film under section 33
(c) the publisher of the film, or
(d) a person aggrieved by the decision.
Section 43 sets out the conditions regarding the manner and form of applications for review, including time limits. Under section 44, the Review Board must deal with an application for review in the same way that the Board deals with an application for classification of a film.
Classification of Films under the Classification Act
Section 9 provides that, subject to section 9A, films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines. Section 9A(1) provides that a film that advocates the doing of a terrorist act must be classified RC.
Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include:
(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and
(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film; and
(c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and
(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.
The National Classification Code
Relevantly, the Films Table of the Code provides that:
Films that:
(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or
(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or
(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence;
are to be classified RC.
Films (except RC films and X 18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see are to be classified R 18+.
The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect as far as possible, including that:
(a) adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want
(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them
(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive
(d) the need to take account of community concerns about:
(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and,
(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.
The Guidelines
Three essential principles underlie the use of the ‘Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012’ (the Guidelines) which are determined under section 12 of the Classification Act:
– the importance of context
– the assessment of impact, and
– the six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.
3. Procedure
The film ESAFETY INV-2026-01286 (the film) was classified by the Classification Board on 19 February 2026 as RC – Refused Classification.
On 7 April 2026, an application for a review was lodged by X Corp (the Applicant).
Three members of the Review Board convened on 24 April 2026 to review the classification of the film.
The Review Board noted that the classification took effect on 19 February 2026, and the application for review of the decision was made on 7 April 2026, outside of the timeframe stipulated under section 43(3)(a) of 30 days after the classification took effect.
The Review Board considered whether to allow a longer period for the making of the application under section 43(3)(b) in the circumstances, including:
(a) the application was made 15 days after expiry of the 30-day period under section 43(3)(a), which constituted a relatively short period of time;
(b) the Applicant had not been able to access the film for some of the 30-day period after classification took effect; and
(c) classification of the film raises complex issues and the Applicant had obtained legal representation in respect of the application.
The Review Board decided to allow an extension of time for the application to be made under section 43(3)(b).
The Review Board therefore determined that the application was a valid application.
On 14 April 2026 the Applicant was advised that written submissions could be provided by 23 April 2026.
On 21 April 2026 the Applicant was advised that any submissions should be made in writing, with no oral hearing.
On 23 April 2026, the applicant provided a submission to the Review Board.
On 23 April 2026 the eSafety Commissioner provided written submissions to the Review Board.
The Review Board viewed the film.
The Review Board then considered the matter.
In its submissions dated 23 April 2026, the Applicant requested an opportunity to make oral submissions to the Review Board if the Review Board was minded to classify the film higher than R 18+. The applicant claimed that the failure to accept oral submissions would deny the applicant procedural fairness, as an oral hearing is necessary for the applicant ‘to have a fair opportunity to address whatever matters the Classification Review Board might propose to take into account in reaching any adverse decision’.
The Review Board considered whether it is necessary or appropriate for oral submissions to be invited, noting that there is no express statutory requirement for an oral hearing. In circumstances where the Review Board was provided with detailed written submissions from the Applicant and a submission from the eSafety Commissioner, and the Applicant had been told prior to the provision of its submissions that any matters it wished to raise with the Review Board should be put in writing, the Review Board decided that the issues were well understood and oral submissions would not be of further assistance for the Review Board to classify the film. The Review Board further considered that the Applicant has had a sufficient opportunity to be heard in relation to the application and is on notice of the issues relevant to the decision.
4. Evidence and other material taken into account
In reaching its decision, the Review Board had regard to the following:
(i) X Corp’s application for review
(ii) X Corp’s written submissions
(iii) a written submission received from the eSafety Commissioner
(iv) the film, ESAFETY INV-2026-01286
(v) the relevant provisions in the Classification Act, the Code and the Guidelines, and
(vi) the Classification Board’s report. 1
1 While the Review Board read the Classification Board’s report, the Review Board was conscious that, as the applicant submitted, the Review Board must proceed to undertake a de novo review without any presumption as to the correctness of the Board’s decision.]
5. Synopsis
The film ESAFETY INV-2026-0286 is a 1 minute and 13 second film that appears to depict the immediate aftermath of the Bondi mass shooting event on 14 December 2025.
The film is shot from a first-person point of view. It is not possible to identify the filmmaker who remains almost entirely offscreen. It is unclear whether the footage was shot on a mobile phone or bodycam. The film is low resolution, grainy and blurry in places. The audio quality is varied.
The film begins with the camera panning across, then around, several bodies at a sheltered picnic table. The concrete floor under the picnic table is covered in a large volume of blood, and appears to be fresh from its sheen. The Review Board notes that the eSafety submission states that ‘there is a large volume of blood and brain matter on the floor underneath the seat’. There is some matter in the pool of blood, however the nature of this matter was unclear – whether brain, bodily, or other matter. The camera pans across an apparently deceased man lying on a bench seat with bloody injuries to his head. A second man lies across the bench, but is seen moving. A woman sits slumped backwards across the table, immobile, blood on her tracksuit pants. A man attempts to provide medical assistance, obscuring entirely the woman’s face and much of her body. The Review Board notes that the eSafety submission states that this woman is a child. The Review Board was not able to conclusively determine the person’s age from the footage, and for the purposes of the Code and Guidelines, could not determine that this was a person who is or appears to be a child under 18 years. The three individuals appeared to have suffered gunshot wounds.
The camera crosses the park, past an immobile, presumably deceased, person covered by a patterned picnic mat. The camera moves to a man receiving CPR from a woman. The camera continues to move around the park, past a man lying immobile in the grass with dark coloured clothing covering his head, apparently deceased. The camera moves to a group huddled together including a woman and two children. The camera is temporarily obscured by the clothing of the woman.
The camera then moves back across the park, moving into and lingering on a close up of the male victim receiving CPR, suggesting the filmmaker is squatting or kneeling next to or over the victim. There is a clear shot of the victim’s face, with sufficient detail for the victim to be identified. A second victim is also seen receiving CPR. Both victims are shown to be unresponsive.
The footage was recorded, often within metres of victims and impacted community members in the aftermath of the shooting, without their apparent awareness or consent.
Throughout the film, we can hear sirens, yelling, crying, calling out to others by name, and other sounds of distress.
Throughout the film, a watermark logo with the text OUTLAW MEDIA and the silhouette of a figure leaning against the words appears in the bottom left corner of the screen.
6. Findings on material questions of fact
The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes of importance under various classifiable elements outlined in the Guidelines:
(a) Themes – the film contains high impact themes of real violence, crime, death, and blood and gore.
(b) Violence – the film contains the unedited and graphic depiction of the immediate aftermath of real-life violence, apparently causing death and critical injuries. The impact of the depiction is very high.
(c) Sex – not present in the film.
(d) Language – not present in the film.
(e) Drug Use – not present in the film.
(f) Nudity – not present in the film.
7. The Application and submissions by the Applicant
The Applicant provided written submissions to the Review Board on 23 April 2026.
The Applicant submitted that the film should not be classified RC and should be classified no higher than R 18+.
The Applicant further submitted that the film in no way condoned the Bondi terror attack and as such did not promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence. The Applicant submitted that the film was an objective depiction of the aftermath of the attack at Bondi, shot by an apparent survivor of the attack who it could be inferred was attending the Chanukah by the Sea event at which the Bondi attack occurred.
The Applicant referred to a wide variety of pre-existing media, and cited the classification, reception, availability or other treatment of such media in support of its argument that the current film should not be classified RC.
The Applicant cited the Review Board’s decisions in respect of ESAFETY INV-2025-05224, ESAFETY INV-2025-05226 and ESAFETY INV-2025-05242 (the 2025 Decisions), which depict the killings of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska in 2025, which were classified as R 18+ by the Review Board in December 2025. The Applicant submits that the same reasoning should be applied in this case. The Applicant submitted that to refuse classification would invite a perception that there is inconsistency.
The Applicant submitted that films including graphic depictions of events from the Holocaust, the Vietnam War and the attacks by Hamas on October 7, 2023 had not been refused classification or censored in Australia and that the current film was no more contrary to community standards than those examples, which the Applicant submitted no reasonable person would consider should not be available to adults.
The Applicant further cited photographs of the aftermath of a napalm bombing in the Vietnam War and a photo and video of Thích Quảng Đức’s self-immolation in Vietnam in 1963 as media which have affected public opinion, prompted political action, are viewed as historically significant and were not refused classification in Australia.
The Applicant further cited a range of media which it argued had taken on historical or political significance because of their impact, including, but not limited to, depictions of whipped slaves, lynchings, mutilated children, mass murders and graves, assassinations and attempted assassinations, and torture, including in particular the assassination of President John F Kennedy, the shooting of an unarmed Afghan man by Special Air Service operator, the self-immolation of a refugee at the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, the killing of George Floyd, and the shooting of Kumanjayi Walker. The Applicant submitted that the film is not more graphic or impactful in its depictions of crime or violence than those media and that such media were likely to spark reform through legislation, policy or public inquiries. The Applicant submitted that it is usually the high impact of an image or film which prompts political communication and may lead to change.
The Applicant emphasised the distinction between the act and the ‘depiction’ of that act for the purposes of considering whether the depiction should be refused classification. The Applicant submitted that the film does not depict crime, cruelty or violence in such a way that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified on the basis that it did not depict acts of violence themselves nor injury detail, the filmmaker appears to disapprove of the preceding acts of violence, and the film’s depiction is an objective and unaltered view from a witness to those acts that is not itself gratuitous, exploitative or offensive.
The Applicant submitted that the film’s historical and political significance supported this conclusion: the Bondi mass shooting being an event of historical and political significance which has prompted public discourse and political action, and the film provided evidence against anyone seeking to deny or belittle the Bondi mass shooting. The Applicant referred to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report ‘Classification – Content Regulation and Convergent Media’ in support of its submission that the refused classification category should not be applied overly broadly, as it could restrict access to material that has ‘historic value’, ‘newsworthiness’ or ‘political significance’. The Applicant also referred to a study prepared for the ALRC on community attitudes to a series of films including fictional violence and actual violence.
The Applicant submitted that ‘[c]lassification decisions must also take into account the important value of … the constitutional freedom of political communication’ and argued that, by analogy to the protest laws recently invalidated by the New South Wales Court of Appeal, classifying the film RC would restrict public discourse. The Applicant submitted that classification decisions must take into account the important value of freedom of expression and the constitutional freedom of political communication, stating that the actual or potential historic of political significance of the film is relevant to whether the depiction (as opposed to the act) is gratuitous, exploitative or offensive and whether the depiction offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults ‘to such an extent that it should not be classified’.
8. Submissions by the eSafety Commissioner
The eSafety Commissioner provided written submissions to the Review Board on 23 April 2026.
The eSafety Commissioner submitted that the film should be classified RC on the basis that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults such that it exceeded the R 18+ and X 18 + classifications. The eSafety Commissioner made the following arguments in support of this submission:
(a) another film containing similar footage of the same attack (including the same depictions of people who have been murdered and/or receiving medical help), 12 s longer than the film, was classified RC by the Classification Board on 23 December 2025 (reference no. T25/14977) and the same considerations which led to that classification should apply to this film;
(b) the film contains close-up, graphic detail of dead and injured victims of gratuitous, real-world violence, the impact of which is heightened by the focus on victims’ injuries, which goes beyond what is necessary to facilitate public or political commentary;
(c) as a real-life depiction of violence with a high impact, the film can be considered gratuitous or offensive despite its treatment of its subject matter;
(d) the informational and public interest value in footage of the attack is outweighed by the excessive detail of the violence and use of effects which emphasise the violence, including to depict human body matter, victims, their injuries and audio from witnesses of the attack;
(e) as an attack in Australia, it is more likely to offend against standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults in Australia.
9. Reasons for the decision
The Review Board considered whether the film met the criteria in the Code for classification as RC, as set out above.
The Review Board considered that the film depicted, expressed or otherwise dealt with matters of crime, cruelty and violence. The Review Board considered that such depictions offended against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that the film should not be classified. The reasons for this determination are set out below.
The film comprises entirely of uncut, real-world, and graphic footage of the immediate aftermath of a recent mass shooting in Australia. As the Applicant submits, the acts of violence themselves are not depicted in the film. It is an unfiltered and unedited depiction of the victims, many of whom appear to be deceased, in the process of dying, or suffering from critical injuries from the shooting. The film depicts multiple victims at close range. The camera initially pans across then around three bodies with visible gunshot wounds, covered and surrounded by fresh blood. Their slumped and angled positioning suggests they are either dead or critically injured. Whilst the Review Board accepted that the film is grainy and blurry in places, the Review Board did not accept the Applicant’s submission that no injury detail was evident. The film also comprises close-up footage of victims who are unresponsive and receiving CPR. The camera lingers in prolonged close-ups of such victims, including, in some instances, views of their faces, rendering them identifiable.
The film presents graphic and confronting imagery of real-life human trauma, suffering and death. It depicts identifiable victims of a mass shooting at moments of extreme vulnerability and without their apparent awareness or consent. The Applicant submitted the ‘depiction is not itself gratuitous, exploitative or offensive’ noting that the film depicts events in ‘an objective and unaltered way’ emphasising the absence of ‘special effects, editing or alterations which increase the impact.’ In the Review Board’s opinion the absence of special effects, editing or alteration contributes to its very high impact, producing a raw and intrusive portrayal of victims in extremis. The impact is heightened by the immediacy of the scenes after the shooting. The events depicted are recent and occurred within Australia. This proximity further intensifies the impact of the film. Such impactful and intrusive footage is likely to cause outrage or extreme disgust in reasonable adults, and is therefore offensive. The film is a gratuitous and exploitative depiction of human suffering in the immediate aftermath of heinous real-world violence.
The Review Board considered the character of the film. The film provides a raw eyewitness perspective of the aftermath of the Bondi mass shooting event in December 2025. While the watermark OUTLAW MEDIA may imply that the film is intended to be received as news media, treatment commonly associated with news or documentary works – such as narration, introduction, description or other curation of the content – were absent. The Review Board considered that it was reasonable to infer that the maker of the film was a person who was at or in close proximity to the shooting and who then attempted to provide comfort to members of the community who had survived the attack.
The Review Board considered the person(s) among whom the film was likely or intended to be published. The Review Board considered that, based on the character of the film, it was intended to be published to consumers of content from OUTLAW MEDIA, an Australian news media entity, likely over social media platforms (including, but not limited to, X). The Review Board accepted the Applicant’s submission that X has in place measures which restrict access to minors for certain content and notify adults of the nature of the content before viewing it. The Review Board considered that the likely audience of the film would be adult social media users.
The Review Board did not consider that the film described or depicted in a way that was likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, under 18.
The Review Board did not consider that section 9A of the Classification Act applied to the film. The film depicts the aftermath of a mass shooting event. The nature of its portrayal events, dialogue and focus on the human consequences of that mass shooting do not in any way counsel, promote, encourage, urge the doing of nor provide instruction on the doing of a terrorist act, nor did the film directly praise the doing of a terrorist act and as such section 9A was not considered to be applicable.
The Review Board did not consider that the film promoted, incited, or otherwise instructed in matters of crime or violence. As noted in the Applicant’s submissions, the mere depiction of crime or violence does not constitute promotion, incitement or instruction in such matters. The film focused on the devastating consequences of a criminal attack and elements such as dialogue offering to assist first aiders at the scene and consoling survivors of the attack, as depicted in the film, suggest that the film does not endorse or support the preceding attack.
The Guidelines assist in applying the criteria in the Code by providing that a film will be refused classification if it includes any of the following:
(a) Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence;
(b) Depictions or descriptions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years; or
(c) Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed;
(ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact;
(iii) sexual violence.
The Review Board did not consider above criteria (a) or (b) to be applicable to the film.
The Review Board considered that the film included a depiction of cruelty or real violence which had a very high impact, through its detailed portrayal of the injuries and impacts to victims of a mass shooting event, as described above.
In such cases, the Guidelines provide that a film should be refused classification if its depiction of such cruelty or real violence is ‘gratuitous, exploitative or offensive’, which the Review Board considered the depiction in the current film to be.
The Review Board considered the Applicant’s submission that reasonable adults would recognise that other adults should not be prevented from sharing or viewing material of historic or political significance even if some may find it offensive and that such material does not offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults ‘to such an extent that it should not be classified’ (emphasis in submissions).
The Review Board considered the merit of the film. While the Bondi mass shooting event in December 2025 may be considered of historical and political significance, the Review Board did not accept that the film itself was of such significance to outweigh the offence it would cause against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.
The Review Board considered the Applicant’s submissions about the political significance of the material contained in the film. While the Review Board accepts there may be potential for the film to be used for political communication, the Review Board undertook its review by applying the provisions of the Classification Act and is not required to reach a separate view on whether any burden on political communication that would result from the film being Refused Classification is justified under the Constitution.
To the extent that the applicant refers more generally to the ‘value of freedom of expression’ and submits that to censor the film would restrict public discourse, the Review Board considers that it is appropriate for the film to be refused classification, having regard to the application of the Act, Code and Guidelines, as discussed in these reasons.
In its submissions, the Applicant cited a wide variety of material depicting crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena, which spanned different historical periods and covering different subject matter, including media of the killings of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska; the Holocaust; the Vietnam War; and attacks by Hamas on 7 October 2023, among others.
Classification under the Classification Act should be undertaken based on application of the provisions of the Classification Act (and, as a consequence, the Code and Guidelines) to the particular film being classified, rather than by reference to previous decisions of the Classification Board or Review Board. Many of the examples cited in the Applicant’s submissions have not been classified under the Classification Act and the inferences that can be drawn from their availability online are of limited value to the assessment of the film presently in issue.
In any case, limited weight can be placed on inferences drawn from the classification, treatment, online availability, significance or critical reception of previous films or other media, particularly as each work must be assessed on its own merits, having regard to its content, context, and impact. As these elements are shaped by multiple factors, direct comparisons will often be of limited assistance.
Even if these other works cited by the Applicant held comparative weight, the film differed from these works in several salient ways, including, but not limited to (each with respect to some, but not all, of the examples cited by the Applicant):
(a) the film depicts events in Australia;
(b) the film depicts recent events;
(c) the film does not depict the commission of the act of crime or violence itself;
(d) the film appears unedited, and does not form part of a larger work which provides context to the film or characterises it as news or documentary footage.
The effect of such discrepancies is complex, contextual, and multifaceted (e.g., a film depicting the aftermath of an attack could conceivably, depending on its presentation and context, have a higher level of impact or significance than footage of the attack itself). The numerous examples cited by the Applicant do not provide a sound basis on which to draw conclusive inferences around the response of a reasonable adult to the current film.
The Review Board accepts the Applicant’s submission that there is value in consistency in decision-making in classification decisions. As noted above, few of the examples raised by the Applicant above have been classified in Australia and, where they have been, the Review Board considered that the characteristics of the film under review in the present case were such that the RC classification of this film was not inconsistent with such prior classifications.
For example, in the 2025 Decisions, the films in question were found not to be gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent they should be refused classification. The film under review in the present case differed from those films materially, such that the Review Board did not consider that there was inconsistency in finding that this film should be refused classification for reasons including:
(a) the films classified in the 2025 Decisions depicted acts of violence rather than their aftermath, leading to fundamentally different considerations as to what reasonable adults would consider gratuitous, exploitative or offensive in those contexts;
(b) the 2025 Decisions related to films of events outside of Australia; and
(c) each of the 2025 Decisions noted a more detailed depiction the events shown in each film would be capable of being exploitative, gratuitous or offensive such that it should be refused classification. In the present case, the Review Board considered the film’s depiction of the aftermath of the Bondi mass shooting event is significantly detailed, such that refusal of classification on this basis is warranted.
The Review Board considered the Applicant’s submissions in respect of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) report, ‘Classification – Content Regulation and Convergent Media’ (ALRC 118), and a study prepared for the ALRC, ‘Community attitudes to higher level media content’ (the Study).
The Applicant’s references to ALRC 118 appear in fact to refer to the National Classification Scheme Review discussion paper from September 2011 (DP 77). Both DP 77 and ALRC 118 related to potential reform of the National Classification Scheme and the Review Board considered these to be of limited relevance to the classification of this film.
To the Applicant’s submission that the RC category should noy [sic] be applied broadly as it may restrict access to material of ‘historic value’, ‘newsworthiness’ or ‘political significance’, the Review Board considered that such factors go to a film’s merit and general character and so are considered in classifying a film, as required by s 11 of the Classification Act.
In respect of the Study, the Applicant cited findings relating to audience views on footage of public executions of two men in Guatemala and from HOSTEL [2005], a fictional film depicting torture of young tourists. The Review Board considered audience views in relation to such other footage was of limited relevance to classifying the film presently under review.
In any event, the Review Board’s consideration of the Study did not affect its conclusion on classification. Some participants said footage of the executions ‘was offensive because the viewer was observing the death of real people’ and ‘general consensus was that if it were a news report, it should be banned; if it were a documentary, it should not’, 2 emphasising the importance of treatment and context in determining whether RC classification is appropriate. Factors participants said mitigated the impact of that footage, such as use of pixelation and that the events occurred far from Australia, were absent in the film presently under review.
On HOSTEL, some participants said special effects detracted from a feeling of real offensiveness and “unreality” of the story and images lessened the clips’ impact. The Review Board did not accept fictionality is generally likely to increase offensiveness of violence and considered the Study to be not inconsistent with the view that depictions of real violence may, due to their reality, be higher in impact than equivalent fictional depictions.
The Review Board did not have access to the footage cited by the eSafety Commissioner and classified RC by the Classification Board (reference no. T25/14977) which the eSafety Commissioner submitted consisted of the same footage as the film, and as such was unable to make any conclusions with respect to that footage. In any case, as discussed above, the Review Board considered that comparisons to classification of other media was of limited assistance in undertaking the Review Board’s task.
The Review Board considered that reasonable adults would consider the depiction of civilian victims of a recent mass shooting in Australia, presented in this manner, to offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified, and that the film should therefore be refused classification.
2 Community attitudes to higher level media content, p 38.
Minority opinion
In the view of the minority, the film contains a depiction of the aftermath of violence which has a high degree of impact, but not a very high degree of impact.
In the minority’s view the single, apparently unedited, shot cannot be described as excessively frequent. And, while the depiction contains some detail, camera movement and image quality obscure much, so that the depiction is not excessively detailed.
Notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event, in the minority’s view, the depiction is not gratuitous, exploitative or offensive to the extent that it should be Refused Classification. The level of detail is not so graphic that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.
The minority notes that films classified R 18+ – Restricted may contain material which is high in impact and which is offensive to sections of the adult community. In the minority view, the film is appropriately classified R 18+ – Restricted with a consumer advice warning that it contains ‘High Impact Violence, Blood and Injury Detail, Distressing Scenes’.
8. Summary
Having considered sections 9 and 11 of the Classification Act together with the Code and Guidelines, the Review Board found that the film’s depiction of violence is very high in impact, involving prolonged, close-range and unedited footage of identifiable victims who appear deceased or with visible injuries in the immediate aftermath of a recent mass shooting in Australia.
Taking into account community standards, the Review Board found these depictions to be intrusive, gratuitous and exploitative in its depiction of violence and real human suffering, and to offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified. The film should therefore be Refused Classification.
– Classification Review Board report
Missing eSafety reports
The Classification Review Board report references another clip of the Bondi Beach shooting, Classification Board File No. T25/14977. It is described as running 00:12 longer than the one under review, which would bring its total to 01:25.
It was Refused Classification on 23 December 2025, nine days after the event. The National Classification Database has no record of this decision, indicating that eSafety submissions are being routinely withheld
eSafety vs. X Corp
Julie Inman Grant gave evidence at the ‘Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion’ on 2 July 2026.
2 July 2026
‘We fought hard against X in terms of not allowing … post-mortem Bondi content…We fought hard to agree that it was RC’‘They [X Corp] said it’s not any worse than you would see in a gore movie. I said I can’t think of anything more horrific for the family members and the Australian Jewish community, so we fought really hard, and we were able to get them to agree to keep that refused classification.’
‘We’ve got the most powerful technology in the world, owned by the richest, wealthiest technologists in the world, but we’ve never had looser guardrails,’
– Elon Musk’s X fought to keep Bondi massacre content online: eSafety commissioner
‘That, to me, is a recipe for disaster…But these are mainstream platforms that are fighting for the right and ability to distribute and monetise this content.’
– article @ smh.com.au