🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation 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 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.