🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos 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.

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