🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment 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 made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.