🔗 Share this article

In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a earlier ruling that blocked Australian-based users from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, arguing against an directive issued at the request of the national eSafety commissioner.

Background on the Case and Classification Ruling

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in last year, the eSafety commissioner petitioned the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that empowered the commissioner to instruct social media companies to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to 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

In its appeal, 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.

The social media giant argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that prompted widespread discussion". The platform even compared 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 exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to warrant a 'refused classification' rating. The board suggested that a more detailed depiction with different editing might have met that threshold. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Opinion

A minority on the board disagreed, arguing the post was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as engagement metrics)". This view stated the parallel with the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was released years after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Outcome

In a statement on its official policy channel, the platform expressed approval of the decision.

"X fought this decision to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator acknowledged the board's decision, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "must take steps to ensure R18+ material being displayed to Australians who are minors".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

In related news, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident circulating on social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they did not reach the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been advised to apply warning labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in line with their own content policies.