🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board concluded 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. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued 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 content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.