🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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