🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the death 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 empowered the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.