🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator petitioned the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

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

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority 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 could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the board disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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