🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.