🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies 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 similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.