🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on 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 the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

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

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices 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 images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.