🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to order platforms to restrict access to the posts 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 another piece of footage—showing 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 surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing 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 flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

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

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.