🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate 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 "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content 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 alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

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 upsetting, they did not reach the required standard 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.