Reddit Tells Australia's Top Court the Teen Ban Is Inept and Unconstitutional
Reddit has told Australia's High Court that the country's ban on social media accounts for under 16s is an unconstitutional restriction on political debate, opening the first legal challenge to a law other governments are watching closely.
The platform and a libertarian advocacy group argue the ban should be struck down because it breaches an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian constitution. Reddit adds a second argument, that the law should not apply to it at all because it lacks features central to social media, including any reliance on friend networks.
But the case is really about whether a parliament can legislate a harm away without specifying how. Perry Herzfeld, appearing for Reddit, told the seven judges that barring under 16s from holding accounts stops them creating or responding to content on the most important means of communication in the modern world. He said that amounted to a restriction on political debate in Australia of a seriousness the constitution does not permit.
Reddit said it shared the government's harm minimisation aim and still called the law inept, because it names no specific measure to keep minors out and does nothing about other online services where bullying happens, gaming sites among them.
The platform also argued that most social media content can be read without an account, so an age gate on registration leaves the material itself open. "If the Commonwealth is worried about particular features of social media, it should regulate the features, which it has not done," Herzfeld said.
And the record since the ban took effect late last year is part of the argument. Multiple studies, including work by the eSafety Commissioner, have found most Australian teenagers under the cutoff still use social media, which is the outcome the law was meant to prevent.
The government is defending the legislation and its communications minister, Anika Wells, is a named defendant. Joanna Davidson, for the government, told the court that children are more vulnerable than adults to addictive design because their brains are not fully developed, and she continues the defence case the following day.
Outside court, Wells said she would respect a decision that cannot be appealed but would fight the challenge. "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," she said. "We seek to defend that from sustained ideological attack."
So the stakes run past Australia. Britain and Malaysia are among the governments drafting similar rules, and a win for Reddit would give affected platforms a template for slowing them down, while a loss would settle that an age ban can survive a constitutional test.
The enforcement machinery has been tightening in parallel. Australia has doubled the maximum fine for non compliance to A$99 million, about USD 69.5 million, given the regulator greater discovery powers, and said it is preparing a case against some of the largest platforms.
What the hearing does not settle is whether the law works. Neither side has produced evidence on whether the ban reduced harm, only on whether teenagers complied, and the court is being asked about power rather than outcomes.
Reddit and a libertarian advocacy group are challenging Australia's under 16 social media ban in the High Court
Reddit argues the law breaches an implied constitutional freedom of political communication
It also says the law should not apply to it because it does not rely on friend networks
The government says children are more vulnerable to addictive design and will defend the law
Australia has doubled the maximum penalty for non compliance to A$99 million
Source: Reuters
