🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked 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 order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original 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 available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.