🔗 Share this article

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

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted 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

Separately, the regulator did not issue 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 high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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