🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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