🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video 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 individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible 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 alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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