Read the full article, Australia will enforce a social media ban for children under 16 despite a court challenge, on Courthouse News Service.

According to the article, the Australian government said young children will be banned from social media next month as scheduled despite a rights advocacy group recently challenging the legislation in court.

The Digital Freedom Project’s Challenge

The Sydney-based Digital Freedom Project said it had recently filed a constitutional challenge in the Australian High Court to a law due to take effect on December 10 banning Australian children younger than 16 from holding accounts on specified platforms.

Communications Minister Anika Wells referred to the challenge when she later told Parliament her government remained committed to the ban taking effect on schedule.

“We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by Big Tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we stand firm,” Wells told Parliament.

According to Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, a New South Wales state lawmaker for the minor Libertarian Party, “(p)arental supervision of online activity is today the paramount parental responsibility. We do not want to outsource that responsibility to government and unelected bureaucrats…This ban is a direct assault on young people’s right to freedom of political communication.”

The case is being brought by Sydney law firm Pryor, Tzannes and Wallis Solicitors on behalf of two 15-year-old children.

Digital Freedom Project spokesperson Sam Palmer could not say whether an application would be made for a court injunction to prevent the age restriction taking effect on December 10 before the case is heard.

Meta’s Response

Technology giant Meta last week began sending thousands of Australian children suspected to be younger than 16 a warning to download their digital histories and delete their accounts from Facebook, Instagram and Threads before the ban takes effect.

The government has said the three Meta platforms plus Snapchat, TikTok, X and YouTube must take reasonable steps to exclude Australian account holders younger than 16 or face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($32 million).

Malaysia’s Similar Plans

Malaysia has also announced plans to ban social media accounts for children under 16 starting in 2026.

Malaysian Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said this week his Cabinet approved the move as part of a broader effort to shield young people from online harm like cyberbullying, scams and sexual exploitation. He said his government was studying approaches taken by Australia and other countries, and the potential use of electronic checks with identity cards or passports to verify users’ ages.

Discussion Questions

  1. What is the best argument for the proposed law?

    In your author’s opinion, the best argument for the proposed law is that it “takes a village” to raise a child. 

    Given the fact that research demonstrates the adverse effects of social media on children, legislation should be enacted to account for the fact that less attentive parents will not adopt practices that advance the best interests of their children.

  2. What is the best argument against the proposed law?

    In your author’s opinion, the best argument against the proposed law is the “freedom of expression” argument, although this argument does have its “perils and pitfalls.” 

    For example, Australia does not have an explicit constitutional right to freedom of speech; instead, the High Court of Australia recognizes an implied freedom of political communication, which applies narrowly to protect communication regarding political and governmental matters. Your author questions what percentage of “under 16” social media users are online for “political and governmental matters!”

  3. In your reasoned opinion, do you support this law? Why or why not? Would you favor or oppose the United States’ adoption of a similar law?

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. Your author favors the proposed Australian law and would support the United States’ adoption of a similar law, given the fact that it does “take a village” to raise a child. A child’s immunity from the deleterious effects of social media exposure should not be dependent upon how well the child “picked” their parent(s)!

    Note also that the proposed Australian law essentially represents a compromise, since it only applies to children below the age of 16. 

    In Australia, a person is legally considered an adult at the age of 18, marking the age of majority where full legal rights and responsibilities are granted. This means that for 16- to 18-year-olds, the proposed law would still permit them social media access, although they are not technically adults.