🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented 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 warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.