Australia's Child Social Media Ban Faces High Court Challenge

Australia's top court is hearing arguments to strike down a landmark law that bans children under sixteen from using social media.

The Legal Challenge

Online forum Reddit and a digital rights group challenged the policy in the High Court, arguing it is unconstitutional and robs children of free communication. The law was introduced last December as part of government online safety reforms. Reddit lawyer Perry Herzfeld told the court the policy breached implied freedom of political expression. He argued the reform was rushed through with only twenty-four hours for public submissions and contradicted advice from the country's online safety tsar. The Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick, also filed a constitutional challenge, calling the policy censorship. Australian teen Noah Jones, who previously spearheaded the case before withdrawing as a plaintiff, told media that children deserved to have their voices heard.

Government Response

Communications Minister Anika Wells defended the policy outside the court, stating the government aims to protect children from harm against what she called a sustained ideological attack. Government lawyer Joanna Davidson began outlining the case for the full bench of the High Court to show why the government believes social media harms children.

Rules and Penalties

The ban applies to ten platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, X, Kick, Threads, and Twitch. These sites must take reasonable steps to block users under sixteen or face fines of up to A$99m. WhatsApp, Roblox, Discord, YouTube Kids, and Google Classroom are not included. Meta closed about half a million accounts in the first few days, though many teens easily bypassed age checks using photo IDs, selfies, or credit card details.

Context

Australia's policy is a world-first attempt by a national government to completely restrict children from major social media platforms by law. Legal challenges of this type often test the limits of constitutional powers regarding free speech and digital regulation. Courts must balance government safety aims against fundamental rights to communication and expression.