🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case 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 recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing 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 video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the parallel with 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 Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform expressed approval of the ruling.

"We challenged this decision to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator has not issued formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.