High court test of under‑16s social media ban must settle child safety versus free speech

Australia’s bold move to bar under‑16s from social media is now before the High Court, and that should focus minds in Canberra and in living rooms across the country. Nearly 11 months after the law took effect, the legislation that forced 10 major platforms — Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads — to deactivate or suspend accounts they determined to be held by under‑16s is being challenged by Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project, led by NSW MP John Ruddick. They argue the law breaches the constitutional implied freedom of political communication. This is not a theoretical dispute. The law reaches into ordinary families’ lives. Parents who signed children up eagerly for social connection, creators, small businesses and teenagers navigating study and civic life will feel the effects of whatever the court decides. The government framed the measure as a world‑leading effort to protect young Australians from harm online; its opponents say it sweeps too broadly and risks curbing essential political discussion. Both sides make vivid claims, but the High Court is the right forum to weigh whether the law’s means are proportionate to its ends. A sensible public‑accountability test is necessary. Laws restricting speech or access to platforms should rest on clear evidence they will reduce demonstrable harm and should be narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary incursions on free communication. Yet proportionality is not the same as paralysis. If the risks to children’s safety were compelling enough to justify this statutory approach, parliamentarians should be able to point to the data and regulatory design that make it the least intrusive effective option. What ordinary Australians need from this litigation is transparency and clarity. If the court upholds the ban, governments must explain why less intrusive alternatives — stronger age verification rules, better parental controls, targeted educational campaigns or cooperation with platforms on design changes — were insufficient. If the court finds the law unduly intrusive, then ministers must be ready to return to Parliament with more carefully calibrated measures, backed by evidence and clear safeguards for political communication. There is a second accountability question for platforms themselves. Enforcing an age ban across millions of users and across the 10 named services requires robust, accountable processes that protect privacy and avoid arbitrary deactivations. Platforms should be required to publish how they make age determinations, the rate of appeals and the safeguards for legitimate political discussion by adolescents approaching voting age. Parliamentarians who pushed the ban were right to make child safety a priority. But rights and protections often collide. The High Court’s review should force a clearer public record about why this particular instrument was chosen, how it will be applied, and what costs — to civic participation, to businesses and to privacy — are acceptable. Australians deserve a solution that keeps children safe without needlessly narrowing public debate. Sources: Guardian Australia