🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

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

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.