🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared 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 content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator 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 required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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