🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It 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.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief 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 overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

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

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.