🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.