🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X 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, "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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the post 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 the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies 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 high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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