🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision 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".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content 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 resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.