🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

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 assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated 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 video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, 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 parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.