Reddit and Digital Freedom Project take Australia’s punitive under-16 social media ban to the High Court
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Reddit and the advocacy group Digital Freedom Project will argue before the High Court that Australia’s sweeping ban on under-16 social-media accounts unlawfully crushes the implied freedom of political communication and gives the state far too much power over young people’s digital lives.
Australia’s ban, which forces ten major platforms to suspend accounts belonging to users under 16, will be tested in the High Court on Tuesday and Wednesday. The challenge is being brought by the online forum Reddit and the advocacy group Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales Libertarian MP John Ruddick, in a case that could expose how heavy-handed the law has become.
The government says the law is designed to protect minors from harmful features such as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll and persistent notifications. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said more than five million accounts have been suspended since the rule was introduced nearly a year ago, a figure the government presents as proof of success even as critics warn it reflects mass censorship of youth access.
Reddit’s submission argues that the platforms serve as a “common source of news and political information” and that the ban prevents teenagers from posting, commenting on or reacting to political content, including interactions with youth wings of political parties. The company points to its “Ask Me Anything” sessions as evidence of meaningful political engagement that the law now needlessly suppresses.
The Digital Freedom Project makes a similar argument about the burden on political communication, but it also faces a standing issue. The group’s original teenage plaintiffs, Noah Jones and Macey Nyland, withdrew in July over concerns about potential legal costs, leaving the advocacy group as the sole plaintiff. The government contends that the group has not identified any activity it carries out that is impeded by the ban, and it is using that argument to try to block the case before the substance is even heard.
Legal scholars are divided on the prospects. Constitutional law expert Prof. Anne Twomey suggested the case could highlight a mismatch between the law’s intended child-protection purpose and its effect on political speech. Monash University professor Luke Beck argued the ban only marginally reduces political communication among 13- to 15-year-olds and that proving standing will be difficult, reflecting the narrow and uncertain route the challengers face in court.
The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, is also using new powers to assess compliance by platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook, with potential fines of up to nearly $100 million for breaches. Meanwhile, Parliament is debating a digital duty-of-care bill that would require platforms to limit harmful features for children, a measure the government says would achieve the same outcome as the current ban without the sweeping bluntness of a hard age cutoff.