🔗 Share this article

In a significant regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a earlier ruling that prevented viewers in Australia 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 sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. The board initially ruled the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to order social media companies to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been classified as "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, adding that 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 well-known recording 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. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Reactions to the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X expressed approval of the ruling.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the critical nature of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these principles."

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Broader Context on Violent Content

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to social media companies this week regarding graphic footage from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were distressing, they did not reach the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

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