🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.