🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video 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 victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content 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 alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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