🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video 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 might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement 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 made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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