🔗 Share this article

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

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, 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 the JFK shooting.

The majority of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.