🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling 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 company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board 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. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.