🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on 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 circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority 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 panel changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed 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 safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.