🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner 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 related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

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 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 panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.