🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.