🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order 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. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented 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 focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content 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 different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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