🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a rating that empowered the commissioner to order platforms to restrict access to the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X drew a parallel between the footage and the well-known recording of the JFK shooting.

The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with alternative commentary could have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the video was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as the Kennedy video was released long after the event, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its official policy channel, X expressed approval of the ruling.

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

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the regulator did not issue take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.