🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, 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 September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

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 victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.