🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video 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 prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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