Overview: a landmark policy under scrutiny
Australia’s world-first ban on social media for under-16s has sparked a brewing constitutional debate. While the government argues the measure protects children from online harms, legal scholars and human rights groups say the policy raises serious questions about freedom of political communication and proportionality in a modern digital age.
Why a challenge could be on the cards
Top authorities in constitutional and media law have highlighted potential weaknesses in the ban’s design. University of New South Wales associate professor Daniel Joyce stresses that Australia does not have a bill of rights like the United States, which makes a high court challenge more complex, but not impossible. The core issue is whether a blanket age-based restriction unduly burdens political expression online, a hallmark of participatory democracy today.
David Mejia-Canales of the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) argues the policy burdens young people’s ability to engage in political debate across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram. While the government cites safety and well-being as legitimate aims, experts suggest the link to actual online harms is not clearly proportionate to blocking political communication for an entire age group.
The role of young activists in shaping the debate
teen climate advocate Ivy Sheng, a year 10 student who uses social media to discuss environmental justice, is emblematic of how important these platforms are for political education and mobilization. Ivy notes that social media has been where her generation learns about policy and connects with potential voters. She believes restricting access now could slow the formation of political voices that will shape policy and elections in the near future.
“There wasn’t really one moment where I suddenly switched on politically,” Ivy explains. “At 12, I started to pay more attention, and social media became the main place where young people develop their political views.” For many teens, platforms are where climate activism and civic dialogue thrive. From this vantage point, the ban risks dampening a critical speech space that would otherwise empower future voters.
Legal tests to determine constitutionality
Three major tests frame any constitutional challenge to the ban, according to HRLC and other scholars. First, does the law burden political communication? A blanket ban on under-16s from using social media could be seen as restricting their ability to comment, like, or upload content on political topics. Second, is the aim legitimate? The government points to safety and reduced harms from online activity. Third, is the policy proportionate to its aim? This is often the most fraught question, as critics argue there are less invasive ways to protect young people online without suppressing their political participation.
Alternatives and the path forward
Some scholars advocate for a “digital duty of care” and other safeguards that would allow young people to stay engaged online while addressing harms. The possibility of implementing age-appropriate protections without an outright ban remains a central battleground. Human rights advocates also note procedural concerns: bringing a High Court case is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, especially for a youth-led movement.
What’s at stake for the platforms and the public
For platforms like YouTube, the legal interpretation of their status and responsibilities may shift depending on whether the ban stands or is struck down. FOI disclosures suggest videos and streaming services could be argued as distinct categories, potentially opening new avenues for challenge or compliance. As the December 10 deadline approaches, observers are watching not only for a final decision, but for the shape of future policy where youth voices increasingly intersect with national debates about online safety and democratic participation.
Conclusion: the constitutional horizon
Whether the ban survives constitutional scrutiny or falters under the weight of rights-based challenges remains to be seen. What is clear is that teen activists, political education, and the evolving landscape of online communication will be central to this debate. The outcome could redefine how young Australians participate in democracy online and call into question the balance between protecting children and preserving essential freedoms in a digital era.
