🔗 Share this article

In a notable regulatory appeal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was initiated by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive sought by the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the regulator petitioned the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the commissioner to order social media companies to restrict access to 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 a separate video—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X contended that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded 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. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

Some on the panel held a contrary view, contending the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was invalid, as that footage was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner 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 images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on such content in accordance with their existing community guidelines.