🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have met that threshold. Consequently, the board revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released long after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.