🔗 Share this article

Following a notable legal reversal, 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 initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Classification Ruling

Following the death of Charlie Kirk at a US campus in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the available footage. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the posts for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for two separate videos depicting the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on a separate video—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

Arguments Presented and Final Ruling

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with the weapon not shown. The company noted the footage was grainy and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, exploitative, or objectionable, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a notorious public event of public importance that generated widespread discussion". X drew a parallel between the footage and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed 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 more detailed depiction with different editing could have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel held a contrary view, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the likely purposes of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the parallel with the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the event, "once emotions around the matter had calmed".

Reactions to the Decision

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

"X fought this decision to defend free speech and the importance of public access about issues of public interest. We remain dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now implies platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material being displayed to users 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 disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the content were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

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