🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

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 deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.