🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

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 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 instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.