🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.