🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, 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 victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some 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)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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