🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded 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. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

Representatives for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across 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, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.