🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, 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 victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.