🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, 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 camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members 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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement 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, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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