🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.