🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented 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 individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users 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 Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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