🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X 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 classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

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

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack 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.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.