🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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