🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner 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 related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident 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.

The majority of the classification panel 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 could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices 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 images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.