🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel 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. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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