🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content 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 personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.