🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority 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 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 classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos 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 high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.