Australia's Underage Social Media Ban Sparks Urgent High Court Challenge from Teenagers and Digital Rights Group.
In a move that could have far-reaching implications for young Australians, two 15-year-olds - Noah Jones and Macy Neyland - along with the Digital Freedom Project, an initiative led by New South Wales state politician John Ruddick, are seeking an urgent high court injunction to block the government's planned social media ban for those under 16.
The proposed ban, set to come into effect on December 10, would restrict teenagers from using account-based social interaction to engage in online discussions about politics and governance. However, the Digital Freedom Project argues that only allowing teens access to some platforms, such as YouTube, in a logged-out view is not sufficient, as it fails to provide meaningful substitutes for the interactive functions necessary for free political communication.
"This issue should concern every Australian," Ruddick said in a statement. "This ban is disproportionate and will trespass either directly or indirectly upon the rights of every Australian." He added that the proposed law would "improperly rob" 2.6 million young Australians of their right to freedom of political communication, which they believe is an implied constitutional right.
Noah Jones, who will turn 16 before the ban comes into effect, expressed his opposition to the measure, stating, "If you personally think that kids shouldn't be on social media, stay off it yourself, but don't impose it on me and my peers." He also highlighted the need for safer online spaces with age-appropriate features, privacy-first age assurance, and fast takedowns.
The Digital Freedom Project is challenging the law on grounds that Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication. The high court will determine whether it hears the case, with its next sitting days scheduled for the first two weeks of December.
Meanwhile, both Meta and Snap Inc. have stated they will use ID checks as a fallback option if facial age estimation incorrectly estimates an account to be held by someone under 16. However, critics argue that this approach could lead to the "siloing" of younger users and create an environment where kids are forced to resort to fake profiles and VPNs.
As the debate surrounding the proposed ban continues, it remains to be seen whether the high court will intervene, potentially paving the way for a revised law or maintaining the status quo.
In a move that could have far-reaching implications for young Australians, two 15-year-olds - Noah Jones and Macy Neyland - along with the Digital Freedom Project, an initiative led by New South Wales state politician John Ruddick, are seeking an urgent high court injunction to block the government's planned social media ban for those under 16.
The proposed ban, set to come into effect on December 10, would restrict teenagers from using account-based social interaction to engage in online discussions about politics and governance. However, the Digital Freedom Project argues that only allowing teens access to some platforms, such as YouTube, in a logged-out view is not sufficient, as it fails to provide meaningful substitutes for the interactive functions necessary for free political communication.
"This issue should concern every Australian," Ruddick said in a statement. "This ban is disproportionate and will trespass either directly or indirectly upon the rights of every Australian." He added that the proposed law would "improperly rob" 2.6 million young Australians of their right to freedom of political communication, which they believe is an implied constitutional right.
Noah Jones, who will turn 16 before the ban comes into effect, expressed his opposition to the measure, stating, "If you personally think that kids shouldn't be on social media, stay off it yourself, but don't impose it on me and my peers." He also highlighted the need for safer online spaces with age-appropriate features, privacy-first age assurance, and fast takedowns.
The Digital Freedom Project is challenging the law on grounds that Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication. The high court will determine whether it hears the case, with its next sitting days scheduled for the first two weeks of December.
Meanwhile, both Meta and Snap Inc. have stated they will use ID checks as a fallback option if facial age estimation incorrectly estimates an account to be held by someone under 16. However, critics argue that this approach could lead to the "siloing" of younger users and create an environment where kids are forced to resort to fake profiles and VPNs.
As the debate surrounding the proposed ban continues, it remains to be seen whether the high court will intervene, potentially paving the way for a revised law or maintaining the status quo.
. I mean, come on, you can't just take away our freedom of speech and online communication like that. It's so unfair to 2.6 million young Aussies! We're not kids anymore, we should be able to make our own decisions about what we want to post online or not.
. What if you don't want to use YouTube in logged-out mode? That's still better than nothing, right?
. I'm all for ID checks if it means keeping us safe online, but come on, don't just take away our freedom of speech without a fight 
.
. We need to have a real conversation about online safety, mental health, and digital rights, not just try to silence us with some arbitrary rules 
.
and its not just about the law it's about giving them a voice in politics rn let's hope the high court listens and makes some changes 
. i mean, what's the harm in teens having a say online? and now they're trying to block it with an underage social media ban... that's just going to push people underground where it's harder to regulate 
. idk about this ID check backup plan tho, sounds like it could lead to more problems than solutions 
. shouldn't we be focusing on creating safe spaces for teens online instead of shutting them down? 
The government's gonna have to explain why they can't just create safer spaces for them instead of taking away their freedom. Plus, it's not like we don't know how to regulate social media - we've got the tools! 
noah and macy are totally right, we should be able to express ourselves online without fear of getting caught or restricted. facetime or something is NOT gonna cut it! 
we need safe spaces for teens to discuss politics and stuff, not some watered down version that doesnt allow for real interaction. come on australia!!! 
let us speak out!!! 
just read that aussies under 16 are gettin banned from social media in dec... thats like, what even is this? its not like they're doin nothin wrong 
but i guess the gov's all like "we gotta protect them" 
. The ban is gonna do more harm than good, it'll just force them to use the dark web or something 
. And what about all the benefits of social media for teens? It's not like they're going to engage in politics and governance if they don't have access to it 
), it's about being able to participate in the democratic process.
I feel so bad for those teenagers who are going to be affected by this law. It's like, if you can't trust them to make responsible choices online, then maybe they shouldn't be given access to social media in the first place 
anyways, i think its kinda unfair on the teens who arent allowed to use their phones for online discussions about politics and governance its not like they're gonna just sit there and do nothing... plus, whats wrong with a little bit of fake profiles and vpn's lol @ all the adults who dont get it 
! Anyway, back to Australia's social media ban... I think it's pretty weird that they're trying to regulate what kids can and can't do online. Can't they just let them figure things out for themselves? Like, I remember when I was 15, I used to watch all this crazy stuff on YouTube and didn't need any parents' permission or anything 
I mean, come on, give them the tools and resources to navigate online safely, but don't try to control every aspect of their lives. It's all about finding that balance between freedom and safety, you know? 
. They're fighting for something important here - the right to free expression, even if it's online. It's not about being reckless or irresponsible; it's about giving kids some freedom to make their own choices and learn from their mistakes.
We need some balance, you know? A bit of freedom to express ourselves without adultin' around us