🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.