🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented 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.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

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

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. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority 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. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.