🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their own content policies.