Australia’s government has defended its controversial ban on social media accounts for children under 16, describing it as a modest, non-partisan and justified restriction on political expression.
The government’s position was presented before the country’s top court on Wednesday, as it opposed a legal challenge filed by online platform Reddit and a civil liberties advocacy group.
The case comes nearly a year after Australia introduced the world’s first nationwide restrictions preventing major social media platforms from allowing children under 16 to maintain accounts.
The government argues that the legislation is necessary to minimise online harm and protect children’s physical and mental health. However, opponents say it violates constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
Government Says Social Media Restrictions Are Justified
Representing the government, lawyer Stephen Lloyd told a seven-judge panel that the restrictions placed only a limited burden on freedom of expression.
He argued that the law was a relatively minor measure with positive effects and that its impact on political communication was indirect and modest.
Lloyd also explained that the legislation gradually limits children’s ability to send and receive content through social media accounts. However, under-16s can still access certain online content without creating an account.
He further argued that the law was viewpoint-neutral, meaning it did not target or discriminate against any particular political opinion or form of expression.
Reddit Challenges the Law Over Freedom of Speech
Reddit and a libertarian advocacy group are seeking to have the legislation declared invalid, arguing that it conflicts with constitutional protections for freedom of expression.
During the hearing, a lawyer representing Reddit told the court that restricting social media access for minors placed a disproportionate burden on their right to free speech compared with the potential benefits of keeping them away from these platforms.
The government rejected this argument, maintaining that protecting children from online risks justified the restrictions.
A ruling against the government could have wider implications for other countries considering similar legislation to regulate children’s access to social media.
UK and France Weigh Youth Social Media Bans Amid Mental Health Debate
Social Media Companies Face Heavy Financial Penalties
Under Australia’s legislation, children and their parents or caregivers do not face penalties for violating the restrictions.
However, social media companies that systematically fail to comply with the law can face fines of up to A$99 million, equivalent to approximately $68.97 million.
Despite the restrictions, several studies, including research by Australia’s online safety regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, have found that most children under 16 in the country continue to use social media.
The government has indicated that it is preparing legal enforcement action to address non-compliance.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Lloyd acknowledged that it remained unclear whether companies were struggling because of weaknesses in age-verification technology or because they had failed to implement the required systems effectively.
Nevertheless, he maintained that the legislation would still contribute to the government’s broader child protection objectives.
Court Hearing Adjourned as Global Debate Continues
The court has adjourned the hearing, with another date yet to be announced. The seven judges are expected to deliver their ruling following the proceedings.
The case is being closely watched internationally as governments increasingly consider restrictions on children’s social media use amid concerns about online safety and mental health.
A decision in favour of Reddit and the advocacy group could create significant challenges for Australia’s approach and potentially influence similar regulatory efforts in other countries.
