🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—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 the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means 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 eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.