🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal 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

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

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

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.