🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users 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 order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording 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 gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices 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 upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.