🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the shooting incident 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 online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, 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 footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content 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 alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

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 shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.