🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against 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 last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform 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 content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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