🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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