🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to officially classify the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, 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 victim to the surrounding crowd.

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

Most members of the classification panel concluded 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 more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with 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 global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the decision.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting 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 users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.