🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed 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 company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the post 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 JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

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

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.