🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos 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 a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, 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 drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

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

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices 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 did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.