🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block 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 a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "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 footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content 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 alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

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

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.