🔗 Share this article

Following a notable regulatory appeal, a national review panel has reversed a prior decision that prevented viewers in Australia from accessing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was lodged by Elon Musk's company X, which contested an order issued at the request of 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 review board to assess and rate the available footage. The board first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a rating that allowed the regulator to order platforms to geo-block the videos 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 assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had also been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

In its appeal, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief 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 surrounding crowd.

X argued the video was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a significant incident of public importance that generated extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "notwithstanding the heinous nature of the event," the content did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, 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. Consequently, the board changed the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". This view stated the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public long after the assassination, "after public sentiment around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Outcome

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

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. Our commitment remains committed to safeguarding these principles."

A spokesperson for the safety regulator also welcomed the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now implies platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material being displayed to users who are minors".

Broader Context on Sensitive Footage

Separately, 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. The regulator stated that while the images were distressing, they had not met the high threshold for a "refused classification" rating.

Instead, platforms have been advised to apply warning labels and interstitials, such as blurring, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.