🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.