🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly 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 neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator 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 upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.