ABRAnews Three sides to every story.
World

Australia's High Court hears challenges to under-16 social media ban

Reddit and a rights group challenge the law. Communications Minister Anika Wells says it defends Australians' right, and especially children's, to be free from harm.

7 news outlets reported this · Little coverage from conservative outlets
Liberal4 outletsReddit's arguments and the court's questionsCenter2 outletsCourt test, the teens, and enforcement recordConservative1 outletCourt begins hearing constitutional challenges to the ban
Published 3 min read
Overview

Australia's High Court on Tuesday began a two-day hearing on challenges to a world-first law that bars children under 16 from major social media services. The ban took effect in December last year and covers ten platforms, among them Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat and X. Seven judges are hearing two cases. The Digital Freedom Project, a rights group led by New South Wales politician John Ruddick, says the law improperly removes young Australians' implied constitutional freedom of political communication.

Reddit says the ban raises privacy and political expression issues and that it should not be grouped with the other platforms. Reddit's lawyer, Perry Herzfeld, told the court that a rushed process was likely to lead to "ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation," according to The Guardian. Noah Jones, a 16-year-old removed as a plaintiff over concerns about legal costs, called the law "a stepping stone" to censorship.

Communications Minister Anika Wells said the government is defending "an Australian's right, and particularly an Australian child's right, to be free from harm" against "sustained ideological attack." The Guardian reports that more than 5 million accounts the platforms believe belong to under-16s have been suspended or deactivated since the ban began. The hearing is due to end Wednesday.

No ruling has been reported.

Key figures
  • more than 5 million accounts suspended or deactivated across 10 platforms since the ban, per The Guardian — The Guardian (US)
  • 85% share of one group of Australians aged 12 to 17 still using restricted platforms, per a British Medical Journal study — ABC News
  • 7 in 10 underage children still holding accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, in government research released in March — ABC News
  • about half a million accounts Meta said it closed in the first few days of the ban — BBC News

Three sides of the story

Liberal4 outlets

Reddit's arguments and the court's questions

The Guardian leads with Reddit's argument that the 2024 law was rushed, quoting its lawyer Perry Herzfeld on "ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation." It also reports Justice Jacqueline Gleeson's reservations and Wells saying she was not the minister when the law passed. Al Jazeera calls the case the ban's "first major legal test" and quotes Reddit's submission that "the effectiveness of the ban has been limited."

It adds the Digital Freedom Project's written argument about teenagers' political participation. ABC News runs the AP wire report, which opens with the court beginning the hearing. It features Noah Jones calling the law "a stepping stone" to censorship and Wells saying the government is defending a child's right to be free from harm against "sustained ideological attack."

The New York Times describes Reddit and an advocacy group claiming the law infringes constitutional rights.

Center2 outlets

Court test, the teens, and enforcement record

The Seattle Times runs the AP wire report also carried by ABC News. It opens with the High Court starting to hear "constitutional challenges" and gives space to Noah Jones, Renee Jones and Communications Minister Anika Wells. It also reports a British Medical Journal study in which 85% of "a group of Australian 12- to 17-year-olds" still used restricted platforms.

BBC News previews the two days of hearings as a "major test" of the policy. It says the Digital Freedom Project filed its case shortly before the ban began on 10 December last year, and that Jones and Macy Neyland, who started the case, have withdrawn as plaintiffs. The BBC adds that no company has been fined since the ban started, that the eSafety Commissioner has launched several investigations, and that many children say they easily got around age checks.

It recalls Wells's earlier pledge: "We will not be intimidated by big tech."

Conservative1 outlet

Court begins hearing constitutional challenges to the ban

The Washington Times reports that the hearing began Tuesday in Australia's top court, which is weighing constitutional challenges to a first-of-its-kind law keeping under-16s off popular social platforms.

Where outlets disagree
  • Maximum fine for platforms
    • ABC News: up to 49.5 million Australian dollars
    • BBC News: up to A$99m for serious or repeated breaches
All sources: 8 articles from 7 outlets

Liberal (5)

Center (2)

Conservative (1)