🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing 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 sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

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. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed 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. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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