🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to 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 challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, 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 individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed 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 might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson 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 Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated 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 accordance with their existing community guidelines.