🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the Kirk video 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 bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content 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 could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.