🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question 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 victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, 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. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.