🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate 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 train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content 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 different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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