🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of 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.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, 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. As a result, the board revised the classification 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 probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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