How Australia’s social media ban threatens free expression

When Australia passed a world-first social media ban for teens, there was a display of national pride from the prime minister, and even the Sydney Harbour Bridge was lit up in the country’s national colours, green and gold, to celebrate the historic achievement.

The law, which came into effect on 10 December, requires 10 platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from having accounts on their platforms, or risk fines of up to $49.5 million.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 had bipartisan support and sailed through Australian parliament last December. Seventy per cent of Australians are said to support it. 

Australia is being feted. The EU, Malaysia, and others are said to be watching, including the UK, although the culture secretary has expressed doubts over whether it could be enforced in the country.

But a barrage of human rights groups and others, including Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and Save the Children, have all criticised or opposed the ban.

Tom Sulston, head of policy at Australian charity Digital Rights Watch, told Index that they were broadly supportive of the idea that internet access is a human right. While the new law only restricts teens from accessing 10 specific sites – X, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch – he said that the space these social media companies represent is enormous.

“They do occupy this space as the town square of digital society,” Sulston said. “So, is it proportionate to remove that right of access to a group of people in order to protect their safety, or under the guise of protecting their safety? We don’t think so.”

He added that there were alternative measures that many organisations were asking for, such as regulation and investment in digital literacy, which could have been put in place instead of an outright ban.

There is now an interesting legal conversation to be had about the ban, Sulston said. On 26 November, two 15-year-olds launched a legal challenge to the law, supported by rights group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), in Australia’s High Court. They are arguing that all Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication.

“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” said one plaintiff Macy Neyland in a statement. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views?” Neyland added that the situation was “like Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

Noah Jones, who is also suing the government, told the media: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket-bans under-16s rather than investing in programmes to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”

A direction hearing for the teens’ court challenge will be heard in February at the earliest.

Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, who is also a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council with the Libertarian Party, has branded the ban the world’s most draconian legislation. He said that it was “as Big Brother as you can get” and that “even the Chinese Communist Party would be drooling over this”.

Reddit was also reportedly looking at legal action, but has confirmed it will comply with the restrictions.

In submissions to Australia’s Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications last November, before it became law, the Australian Human Rights Commission said that it had “serious reservations” about the legislation. While it said that it understood the significance of protecting young people from online harm and the negative consequences of social media, the ban would affect some human rights outlined in international human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

These include the right to freedom of expression and information, and the freedom of association and peaceful assembly, as contained in both treaties.

Digital Rights Watch’s Sulston said that he was also worried about autocracies eyeing up the law. According to digital rights non-profit Access Now, 2024 was the worst year on record for internet shutdowns.

“Young people are not represented democratically, even in democratic societies. If you’re under the age to vote, then you get nothing,” Sulston said. “So being able to organise and develop political understanding and take political action online is really important for that cohort. You can see why it would be very attractive for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on that.”

But Sulston said that even though he considered the law a “disaster” and there was no evidence that it would improve children’s lives, it had already been showcased at the UN General Assembly and “deemed a great success”.

He said: “It’s really hard to see what a path to change looks like, because no matter how harmful it is, it seems we’re stuck with it.”