🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

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

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.