🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video 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 widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies 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 required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.