🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question 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 surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

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 images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.