🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted 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 regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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