🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

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—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority 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 made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

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

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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