🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage 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 national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted 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 victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating 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 footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.