🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users 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.

Details of the Case and Ban

After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to 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 also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the assassination, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

In a statement on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in accordance with their own content policies.