🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. 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 significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.