🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.