🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users 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 directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

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—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. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video 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 different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, 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 required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their own content policies.