🔗 Share this article

In a notable legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Final Ruling

Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only a short moment of violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video 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 warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Opinion

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions regarding it had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to uphold freedom of expression and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but pointed out that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

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

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on such content in line with their own content policies.