🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, 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 drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.