🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly 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 neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes 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 made public long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform 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 committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos 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 "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.