🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated 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 Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.