🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from accessing 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 national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

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

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. The company noted 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, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing could have met that threshold. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, contending 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 comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Response Following the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"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 eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.