🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing 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 issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X 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 public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority 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 alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, 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.