🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an order sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the review board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for users in Australia.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that prompted widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority 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 longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board revised the rating of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

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

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Broader Context on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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