🔗 Share this article

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

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted 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 camera quickly panned away 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 notorious public event of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage 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 alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"X fought this decision to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner 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 images were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

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