🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of 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 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 prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, 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 had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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