🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended 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 surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage 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 video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.