🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

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

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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