Reddit has filed a challenge against Australia's under-16s social media ban in the high court, arguing that the law infringes on its right to free speech. The company claims the law unfairly singles out platforms like itself, which don't have traditional social media features but are still used by adults.
The Australian government had implemented age restrictions on the platform just two days before filing the challenge, citing concerns over minors accessing online harms. However, Reddit disputes this, saying that most of its users are adults and advertising isn't targeted towards children under 18.
Reddit's lawyers argue that the law is an "illogical patchwork" and that other platforms are being unfairly singled out. They claim that implementing age restrictions on itself has had a disproportionate impact on free speech, particularly for minors who rely on it as a source of information.
Professor Sarah Joseph from Griffith University says there's a strong case against the ban, but believes the high court is likely to reject it. "The legislation has cut off the main source of political information for people under 16," she said. "While that may not be its intention, that's one of its many effects."
However, constitutional law professor Luke Beck thinks the challenge is unlikely to succeed. "The social media account ban only slightly reduces the overall volume of political communication in Australia," he wrote. "It doesn't ban teenagers from using the internet or having online group chats."
Reddit has stated it will comply with the law but wants to challenge its classification as an age-restricted social media platform. The case is set to be heard next year if the high court takes up the matter, separate from a similar challenge filed by Digital Freedom Project group earlier this year.
The Australian government had implemented age restrictions on the platform just two days before filing the challenge, citing concerns over minors accessing online harms. However, Reddit disputes this, saying that most of its users are adults and advertising isn't targeted towards children under 18.
Reddit's lawyers argue that the law is an "illogical patchwork" and that other platforms are being unfairly singled out. They claim that implementing age restrictions on itself has had a disproportionate impact on free speech, particularly for minors who rely on it as a source of information.
Professor Sarah Joseph from Griffith University says there's a strong case against the ban, but believes the high court is likely to reject it. "The legislation has cut off the main source of political information for people under 16," she said. "While that may not be its intention, that's one of its many effects."
However, constitutional law professor Luke Beck thinks the challenge is unlikely to succeed. "The social media account ban only slightly reduces the overall volume of political communication in Australia," he wrote. "It doesn't ban teenagers from using the internet or having online group chats."
Reddit has stated it will comply with the law but wants to challenge its classification as an age-restricted social media platform. The case is set to be heard next year if the high court takes up the matter, separate from a similar challenge filed by Digital Freedom Project group earlier this year.
Reddit is like my go-to platform for staying up-to-date on everything and now they're fighting against Australia's social media ban? 
It's just so dramatic but in a good way, you know? 
Like, can't the gov just chill and let people make their own decisions online? 
Anyway, I'm all about free speech, especially for minors who need to stay informed. 
Reddit says most of its users are adults anyway, so like, why should they be targeted too? 
I wish they'd win this case, it's just so unfair! 
! Reddit's arguing that they're being unfairly targeted and it just doesn't add up - I mean, they do have some pretty mature content on there 
. And what's with the age restrictions? Like, aren't those already in place for regular social media platforms? 
. I'm all for free speech and stuff, but this law just seems like it's gonna end up hurting people who are actually looking for information 
.
but seriously, the Aussie gov is just trying to protect minors from online harms, it's not about singling out reddit, it's about keeping them safe 
. I don't get why reddit's being so stubborn about this, they're basically saying that their freedom of speech is more important than the safety and well-being of kids 
.
It's no wonder they'd be affected by this ban! And have you seen the stats on online harms? 1 in 5 teenagers (16-19 years old) say they've experienced online bullying or harassment 
. It's scary stuff.
? So, if the law is targeting platforms like itself unfairly, it's not exactly a level playing field. And let's be real, most of its content isn't even kid-friendly 
? It's crazy to think about how much of a role social media plays in their lives. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this case unfolds...