🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel 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. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.