🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—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 victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

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

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

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

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.