🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—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 the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

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

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, 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

In related news, the eSafety commissioner 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 images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.