🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded 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 more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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