🔗 Share this article

Following 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. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. 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 overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel 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 more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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