🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief 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 argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible 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 alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

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

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.