🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board 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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.