🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority 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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.