🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users 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 sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video 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. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

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 free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.