🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge 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 death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, 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 the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel 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 more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

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