Australia’s rush to put in place a landmark social media ban for children led to “ill thought out” reforms which have robbed them of their right to free communication, the country’s top court has been told.<\/b><\/p>\n
In a major test for the world-leading policy, online forum Reddit and a digital rights group argued at a hearing on Tuesday that the law should be struck down as it is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
Introduced last December, the ban is among a number of online safety reforms the Australian government has spearheaded in recent years.<\/p>\n
Supporters say it protects children from harmful content, but critics say it is too blunt an instrument and efforts should focus on improving online safety.<\/p>\n
Speaking outside the High Court in Canberra, Communications Minister Anika Wells said the question of what society is willing to accept from tech platforms is “the most compelling policy question of our time”.<\/p>\n
“We are here to defend a fundamental tenet of Australian democracy, which is an Australian’s right, and particularly an Australian child’s right, to be free from harm,” Wells said.<\/p>\n
“We seek to defend that from sustained ideological attack.”<\/p>\n
The constitutional challenge was filed by the Digital Freedom Project a few weeks before the ban started<\/a> on 10 December last year. The group is led by New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick, who told reporters outside the court the policy amounted to “censorship”.<\/p>\n Two teens who originally spearheaded the case<\/a>, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, have since withdrawn as plaintiffs. The teens have yet to publicly state their reasons for doing so.<\/p>\n But Jones told media outside the court that children deserved to have their voices heard.<\/p>\n “If the children aren’t collaborating and sharing their own views, then they’re just spectators in their own world,” he said, according to Nine newspapers.<\/p>\n Reddit also launched a High Court challenge<\/a> to the ban, arguing the policy has serious implications for privacy and political rights.<\/p>\n The company said it shared Australia’s goal of protecting young people online “but there are better and more effective ways” than a ban.<\/p>\n “As we challenge this law in court, we’ll continue to comply with it and advocate for more effective youth safety measures,” said Reddit’s chief communications officer Adam Collins.<\/p>\n Inside the courtroom, the company’s lawyer Perry Herzfeld argued the law breached the freedom of political expression implied in Australia’s constitution by restricting children from the most important means of communication in the modern world.<\/p>\n He said the ban was “ill thought out” and contradicted the advice of Australia’s online safety tsar, and was rushed through without true public consultation – pointing out they had only 24 hours to make submissions about the law.<\/p>\n Meanwhile government lawyer Joanna Davidson SC, began outlining for the full bench of the High Court why the government believed social media harmed children. She will continue presenting her case on Wednesday.<\/p>\n Under the ban, ten platforms – Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, X, Kick, Threads and Twitch – must take “reasonable steps” to ensure no one under 16 years old can access its site.<\/p>\n Platforms risk fines of up to A$99m (US$70m, \u00a352m) for serious or repeated breaches, but since the ban started, no company has been fined.<\/p>\n Children under the age of 16 in Australia are no longer allowed to have social media accounts.<\/b><\/p>\n The Australian government says the ban – a world-first policy popular with many parents – is aimed at protecting them from harmful content and other risks such as cyberbullying and grooming.<\/p>\n Some young campaigners have argued the ban disregards the rights of children.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The eSafety Commissioner – the body tasked with enforcing the ban – has launched several investigations into alleged non-compliance by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.<\/p>\n WhatsApp and online gaming sites like Roblox and Discord were not included in the ban, nor were educational platforms like YouTube Kids and Google Classroom.<\/p>\n In the first few days of the ban, Meta – which owns three of the banned platforms – said it had closed about half a million accounts.<\/p>\n Some children said they were booted off their accounts in the days before and when the ban started – but many have said they were able to easily circumvent the age checks which included uploading credit card details, photo IDs or a selfie.<\/p>\n Source: bbc.co.uk<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n
What is the policy?<\/h2>\n