🔗 Share this article

In a significant 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 influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that 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 President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.