🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy 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 public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, 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 flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

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

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.