🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving conservative commentator 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 Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

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

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 changed the rating of the content to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this case to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue take-down orders to social media companies this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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