🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

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

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded 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 different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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