Australiaupdated 1h ago3 min read
Archive photo · 31 December 2016High Court Hears Digital Freedom Project And Reddit Challenge To Australia’s Under-16s Social Media Ban
3 Western Mainstream1 Other1 West AsianPhoto: Chris Olszewski, CC BY-SA 4.0 · Cropped for layout
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
High Court begins hearings on constitutionality of under-16s social media ban in Australia. Digital Freedom Project and Reddit argue ban unlawfully restricts political communication by minors.
Save coverage image
High Court challenge begins
Australia’s High Court will hear the first major legal challenge to the federal government’s under-16s social media ban, with the Digital Freedom Project and Reddit arguing the laws are unconstitutional. The ban, which took effect in December last year, requires social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping an account, and the High Court has joined the challenges into a single special case. The ABC News & Headlines account says the ban has blocked nearly 5 million social media accounts across the 10 affected platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Snapchat, X, TikTok, YouTube, Kick, Reddit and Twitch.
The BBC says the constitutional challenge was filed by the Digital Freedom Project a few weeks before the ban started on 10 December last year, and it adds that two teens who originally spearheaded the case, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, have withdrawn as plaintiffs though Jones is still expected to attend Tuesday’s hearing. The BBC also frames the test as whether the ban robs children of their right to free communication, while supporters say it protects children from harmful content and critics say it is too blunt an instrument.
Competing arguments and quotes
Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project argue the ban is unconstitutional because it reduces political communication in Australia, and the ABC News & Headlines account says the plaintiffs contend there is a “fundamental disconnect” between the law’s intention and its reality.
The ABC News & Headlines account says the plaintiffs argue children under 16 found ways to dodge age-assurance technologies to keep their accounts or create new ones, while potentially harmful content was still available even without an account.
The BBC reports that Digital Freedom Project lead John Ruddick and Reddit are challenging the law, and it quotes Noah Jones saying, "We shouldn't be using the resources and money of these social media platforms to try to avoid fines from our government."
The BBC also quotes Communications Minister Anika Wells saying, "We will not be intimidated by big tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we will stand firm," while the ABC News & Headlines account says the government argues the laws only have a modest burden on political communication and are justified in protecting children from harm.
Monash University constitutional law professor Luke Beck tells the ABC News & Headlines account that, "It's very clear that the Commonwealth can regulate social media and online spaces," and he adds that even if the government lost, it may not abandon the policy altogether.
What is at stake next
The High Court’s decision will determine whether limiting political engagement of children outweighs the harm done by social media platforms, as the High Court hearings begin under the under-16s social media ban. The ABC News & Headlines account says the policy requires platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from creating or keeping an account, and it reports that the plaintiffs seek to overturn the laws on constitutional grounds tied to Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. The BBC says platforms risk fines of up to A$99m for serious or repeated breaches, and it notes that since the ban started, no company has been fined, while the eSafety Commissioner has launched investigations into alleged non-compliance by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.
The ABC News & Headlines account reports that the government says the rules are consultative, targeted, and changeable over time, and it adds that state and territory attorneys-general have made submissions in support of the Commonwealth. The stakes extend beyond the ban itself, as the High Court hearings coincide with a separate push by the Labor government to pass its new digital duty of care bill, which would place legal responsibility on tech platforms to proactively secure their systems rather than relying on users to report harms.