🔗 Share this article

Following a significant regulatory appeal, 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. The appeal was initiated 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. The board initially ruled the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct social media companies to restrict access to the posts for an Australian audience.

The platform X challenged the decision for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. Additionally, it contested a comparable ban on another piece of footage—showing the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise 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. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the camera quickly panned away from the individual to the surrounding crowd.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or objectionable, adding that it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X even compared the video and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was gratuitous, exploitative or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. The board suggested that a longer or clearer version with different editing might have resulted in a different ruling. As a result, the board changed the classification of the videos to R18+.

The Minority Viewpoint

A minority on the board held a contrary view, contending the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or benefit (such as engagement metrics)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as that footage was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains dedicated to protecting these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but noted that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to Australians under 18".

Recent Developments on Sensitive Footage

Separately, the eSafety commissioner did not issue formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the Sydney beach incident shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to use warning labels and screens, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.