🔗 Share this article

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

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of 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".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated 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 ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. As a result, the board revised the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"X fought this case to defend free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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