🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer 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 Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed 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 longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued 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 content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.