🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on 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 available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question 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 bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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