In a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has reversed a prior decision that prevented 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, which contested an order issued at the request of the online safety regulator.
After the death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the regulator applied to the classification board to officially classify the available footage. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that allowed the commissioner to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.
Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on another piece of footage—depicting the attack on Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been classified as "unacceptable for distribution".
Arguing its case, X asserted that the footage in question contained only brief violence with no visible weapon. The company noted the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the individual to the surrounding crowd.
X maintained the footage was not excessively detailed, gratuitous, or offensive, stating it served as a factual documentation of "a significant incident of historical and political significance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the footage and the well-known recording of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.
The majority of the review board concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the content 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 alternative commentary might have resulted in a different ruling. Consequently, the panel revised the rating of the videos to R18+.
A minority on the board held a contrary view, arguing the post was "content designed for sharing for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was released years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had calmed".
Posting on its official policy channel, the platform welcomed the ruling.
"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about matters of public significance. We remain committed to safeguarding these principles."
Representatives for the eSafety commissioner acknowledged the ruling, but noted that the new R18+ rating now means platforms "have obligations to prevent R18+ material is not accessible to Australians who are minors".
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 shared across social media. Officials commented that while the images were distressing, they had not met the required standard for a "refused classification" rating.
As an alternative, platforms have been advised to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.
