Reddit and Digital Freedom Project attack Australia’s common-sense under-16 social media ban in 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 ban on under-16 social-media accounts unlawfully restricts the implied freedom of political communication, even as the government defends the measure as necessary to shield children from harmful online features.
Australia’s ban that requires ten major platforms to suspend accounts of users under 16 years old 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, which is led by New South Wales Libertarian MP John Ruddick, in a bid to overturn a law the government says protects children.
The government says the law aims to protect minors from harmful features such as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll and persistent notifications. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has reported that more than five million accounts have been suspended since the rule was introduced nearly a year ago, a sign, supporters say, that the measure is working as intended.
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 cites its “Ask Me Anything” sessions as an example of political engagement on the site, though opponents say that does little to outweigh the need for age-based safeguards.
The Digital Freedom Project makes a similar argument about the burden on political communication, but 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, questioning whether it should be heard at all.
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, underscoring the view that the challengers face an uphill battle.
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 while keeping the basic protective framework in place.