🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

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

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users 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 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.

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