🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an order sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a similar ruling on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, 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 video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The majority of the classification panel 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 different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, X welcomed the ruling.

"X fought this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. We remain committed to protecting these principles."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians under 18".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, platforms have been instructed to use sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on such content in line with their own content policies.