🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded 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 could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.