🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event 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.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.