🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator 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 death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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