🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X 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 attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.