🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing 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 Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

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

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, 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 Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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