🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate 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 videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the classification 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 probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.