🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

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 public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.