🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge 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 last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, 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 footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.