🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

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

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban 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 Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

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

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies 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.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.