🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered 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 a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.