🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. The board first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company filed an appeal for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the assault of 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 a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the review board ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the panel disagreed, contending the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, the platform welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner has not issued take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their existing community guidelines.