🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—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 footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage 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 extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video 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 justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.