🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief 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 maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

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. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.