🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members 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 longer or clearer version 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 "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.