🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Details of the Case and Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

The social media giant maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members 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 justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this case to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.