Australia’s world-first social media ban faces a constitutional test as youth activism steps into the spotlight
Australia is poised to implement a controversial ban that would block social media access for users under 16. While the policy aims to shield young people from online harms, legal experts warn that its implications reach far beyond platform moderation. Prominent scholars and human rights advocates say the measure could ultimately be challenged in the High Court on grounds that it infringes the implied right to freedom of political communication, a right not as expansive in Australia as it is in some other democracies. The debate is being energized by a new generation of climate activists who are using social media to organize, argue, and persuade — among them a 16-year-old high school student who has become a symbol of what could be at stake.
The debate over the ban intensified when Google, the parent company of YouTube, floated the possibility of a legal challenge in July. Legal scholars interviewed by the ABC stress that any objection will hinge on constitutional tests rather than corporate interests alone. In particular, they point to the potential for a burden on political communication to be established, the necessity of a legitimate government objective, and the crucial question of proportionality — whether the policy achieves safety with minimal restriction on political dialogue.
The legal roadmap: three tests for a constitutional challenge
According to senior human rights lawyers, the challenge would need to pass three key tests:
- Does the law meaningfully burden political communication? Critics argue that a blanket ban on under-16s’ ability to comment on videos, like or dislike content, or upload their own material, directly restricts political discourse for a group that is increasingly politically aware.
- Is the objective legitimate? The government cites protecting children from online harms such as excessive screen time and impaired mental health. Experts acknowledge these concerns but question whether the policy directly achieves the stated aims.
- Is the policy proportionate? This is seen as the most vulnerable hurdle. The question is whether safeguarding youths can be accomplished in a way that least disrupts their freedom to participate in political conversation online.
Amid concerns about proportionality, some scholars note alternative paths, such as a proposed “digital duty of care” that could shield young people without cutting off access to online spaces. Proponents of alternative approaches argue they maintain more robust channels for political education and civic engagement for youths who are just starting to exercise their voting rights.
Youth activists: a new face in the climate movement
Center stage in this evolving story is a Year 10 student who uses Instagram to promote an environmental justice podcast and to share her political views with a wide audience. She describes social media as the primary arena where younger generations shape their political beliefs and learn how to participate in civic life. “There wasn’t really one moment when I became political, but I was about 12,” she says. As the December 10 age-checks approach, she and her peers worry about losing a critical platform for political education and mobilization. If platforms are forced to enforce the ban, many young people may find it harder to engage with issues that affect their futures, from climate policy to broader democratic participation.
Experts caution that the High Court’s consideration of such a case would be novel in its scale and stakes. They acknowledge the real political and social dimensions at play, not just the legal theories. A decision could redefine how Australia balances child protection online with the right to participate in public discourse, especially on issues that mobilize young voters and shift public opinion.
What comes next
While the legal landscape remains unsettled, organizations like the Human Rights Law Centre say they are exploring avenues for a constitutional challenge. In the meantime, the tech sector and government officials continue to debate the policy’s implementation, timing, and the possibility of exemptions for certain platforms. As the December 10 threshold approaches, the country watches whether this bold policy will withstand constitutional scrutiny or give rise to a landmark ruling that redefines political speech and online rights for Australia’s next generation.
