🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording 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 gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.