🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a prior decision that blocked Australian-based users from seeing video footage of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. The appeal was lodged by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Background on the Case and Ban

After the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to assess and rate the circulating video. It first determined the content was "unable to be classified", a designation that allowed the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for users in Australia.

The platform X filed an appeal for two separate videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a similar ruling on another piece of footage—showing the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a North Carolina train—which had also been deemed "refused classification".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

The social media giant argued the video was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, stating it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of historical and political significance that generated extensive public discourse". X even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Most members of the classification panel ultimately agreed that, "notwithstanding the heinous 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 revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

Some on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the likely purposes of amusement and/or benefit (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the JFK assassination tape was flawed, as that footage was made public long after the assassination, "once emotions around the matter had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

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

"X fought this case to uphold free speech and the critical nature of public access about issues of public interest. 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 is not accessible to users who are minors".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued take-down orders to platforms this week regarding graphic footage from the recent Bondi beach terror attack circulating on social media. Officials commented that while the images were upsetting, they did not reach the high threshold for a "total ban" rating.

As an alternative, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and interstitials, such as obscuring the image, on this material in line with their existing community guidelines.