Australia, you’re on the verge of history! It will implement a first-in-the-world social media ban for young people to keep them safe from online dangers. This legislation is scheduled to go into full effect on December 10. It will require an age of 16 as a limit for social media accounts, raising red flags about its effect on political communication and constitutionality. As the new law approaches implementation, various stakeholders—including legal experts, activists, and social media platforms—are voicing their opinions and exploring potential challenges.
That ban has received considerable media hype. Most importantly, it directly impacts young climate activists including Ivy Sheng, one of the nation’s leading advocates for environmental justice. As she approaches that age cut-off, most of her friends will soon lose access to their social media profiles. This adjustment will significantly impact their capacity to engage with and develop political discourse. Sheng underscores the importance of social media as a key space for young people today. It gives them a platform to raise their voices, organize and agitate for change.
“Having young people step up and say, like, hey, this is going to impact my future — I think that’s probably the most important thing that’s going to bring more older people into the climate movement,” – Ivy Sheng
The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) has already flagged the possibility of a constitutional challenge to the legislation. HRLC senior lawyer for racial justice and migration, David Mejia-Canales, recently testified against the bill to the Inquiry. He predicted that a legal challenge is sure to come. Throughout the discussion, he emphasized the importance of moving to review how this law measures up against constitutional protections. He pointed to how it could risk unwittingly encroaching on rights pertaining to political expression.
Concerns Over Political Communication
The social media ban is about more than individual users. It does bring to the fore troubling issues around political speech and expressive conduct. Anne Twomey, a prominent Australian constitutional scholar, has warned that the new law will “chill” political speech. Yet she argues that we need to defend young people from online harms. For her, that’s no reason to give up their freedom to participate in a political discussion.
“That is, protecting young people from those harms in a way that has the least impact upon freedom of political communication,” – Professor Anne Twomey
Twomey rightly questions whether the law is proportional to achieve its purported goals. The third and final test for the law is that it must be no more onerous than necessary to achieve its goal. Critics counter that this strategy may not be enough to meet the statutory requirement. They argue that more proportionate measures are all that’s necessary to reach the same end without compromising free expression at all.
Given these issues, there has been increasing debate around the need for a better targeted, more effective approach to protecting minors online. Daniel Joyce, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales, came up with a better idea. In his white paper released last week, Mr. Tweaking how this approach is implemented. Though welcome, this approach reinforces the idea that social media platforms should protect their young users. It pursues accountability while avoiding across-the-board bans.
The Impact on Young Activists
As the December deadline looms, young activists, like UAlbany graduate student Ivy Sheng, have begun experiencing the very real consequences of the anticipated ban. Sheng uses platforms like Instagram not only to promote her podcast about environmental justice but to share her political views and inspire her peers. Losing access to these platforms could hinder her ability to connect with others and advocate for change.
“If people aren’t able to access … social media, they won’t be thinking about this when they go into their teens and when they [reach] voting age,” – Ivy Sheng
Sheng stresses that the capacity to communicate and mobilize via social media is essential in a world shaped by her generation. She worries that restricting access will push young people away from important conversations about their own future.
“And that’s just not something that is beneficial for us, I think, as a society,” – Ivy Sheng
Many of her peers share similar sentiments. They fear that their interests and voices will be further sidelined in a critical moment when political activism is most needed. Given that social media is today’s primary method of connection, organizing, and activism, cutting this route off could have deep and permanent impacts.
Legal Challenges Looming
The HRLC is currently and intensively lobbying for a successful constitutional challenge. This action is the first indication that legal experts are deeply worried about the legality of the new law. Even so, Mejia-Canales said it can be intimidating and problematic to go through a constitutional case.
“Having a constitutional case, particularly before the High Court, is expensive, time consuming … and incredibly stressful,” – Mr Mejia-Canales
YouTube is known to have expressed its intention to pursue a challenge on procedural fairness grounds. The platform’s representatives believe that the implementation process may lack transparency and fairness towards users who would be impacted by the age restrictions.
Although negotiations on the law are still ongoing, the government is adamant that its number one priority is to protect children from harm online. A representative from the Minister’s Office stated: “Our world-leading social media laws are about protecting children from online harm and giving them three more years to develop real-world connections and online resilience.”
This rationale does not take away from the troubling implication that they may infringe on rights to political discourse and expression. Experts caution that if poorly designed, these types of laws may deepen the divides in civic engagement we already see among young people.
