🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board 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 alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.