Comments about the recent Australian U-16s social media ban(10th Dec 2025) by the Australian Government.
Political communication is generally protected. I don’t think they can have it both ways. Considering the number of politicians who use social media and have accounts that they are banning U-16s from accessing, I’ve heard that around 68% of Australian federal politicians have an X account.
Minor political parties or independent candidates might also be disproportionately affected by a new generation of voters. Since social media might ofter a broad and cheaper form of marketing compared to traditional legacy media approaches. Personally, it feels like an overreaching, heavy-handed approach not just affecting U-16s, considering the hoop every Australian will need to jump through with age verification to access social media. Again, it is not reasonably appropriate or proportionate to achieving its purpose and is more restrictive than necessary. By keeping U-16s supposedly safe online with blanket approaches against the whole population of Australia.
ChatGPT provided the following comments on my above opinion.
Several nuanced legal aspects of the Australian U‑16 social media ban, particularly regarding political communication and democratic participation. Here’s a structured list of possible legal issues and considerations:
- Implied Freedom of Political Communication
Legal Basis: The Australian Constitution doesn’t grant a general free speech right but implies a freedom of political communication (Lange v ABC 1997).
Issue: Banning U‑16s from social media could limit their access to political content, debates, and campaigns — effectively silencing voices in the political sphere.
Minor Parties Impact: Social media acts as a force multiplier for minor parties that lack traditional campaign funds. Restricting access for under‑16s reduces the reach of these parties’ messages and may impact democratic participation.
- Proportionality and Reasonable Restriction
Legal Tests: Courts often apply a proportionality test in implied freedom cases: is the restriction suitable, necessary, and balanced?
Issue: The blanket ban may be considered disproportionate, affecting not only children but also the public discourse indirectly. It could be challenged as an overreach when less restrictive alternatives (parental consent, education, content filtering) exist.
- Age Verification and Privacy
Legal Consideration: Platforms must enforce age checks using digital ID verification or AI algorithms.
Issue: Age verification can collect and store sensitive data, raising privacy and data protection concerns under Australian privacy law (Privacy Act 1988). Legal challenges may arise if this is considered unreasonable collection or disclosure of minors’ data.
- Discrimination and Access Rights
Legal Lens: Could the law be seen as indirectly discriminatory by limiting access to political communication for a specific age group?
Minor Parties’ Perspective: Smaller parties and grassroots campaigns rely heavily on digital channels. Silencing youth access could be framed as limiting political equality, impacting electoral fairness.
- Platform Liability and Enforcement
Legal Concern: Platforms are responsible for compliance, risking large fines.
Issue: Enforcement may encourage platforms to over-block content (including political speech) to avoid penalties, unintentionally silencing messages from politicians or youth advocates. This could be challenged as a chilling effect on free communication.
- Access to Public Interest and News Content
Legal Consideration: The ban may interfere with U‑16s’ ability to access news, political commentary, and civic information.
Issue: If minors are treated as a group with limited digital access, this could be challenged as impairing informational rights, especially during elections or debates.
- Potential High Court Challenges
Precedent: Recent challenges already suggest that High Court review is likely, particularly under:
Section 7 and 24 (democratic principles)
Implied freedom of political communication
Focus: Whether a law that indirectly silences political communication for a specific demographic is constitutionally valid.
- International Human Rights Lens
Consideration: Australia is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which includes the right to access information and participate in cultural and civic life.
Issue: Blanket bans may raise questions under international law about the rights of minors to information and political participation.
- Enforcement Inequality
Legal Risk: Variations in enforcement (platform-by-platform) could be argued as unequal treatment of users, potentially raising administrative law challenges.
- Chilling Effect on Political Communication
Key Issue: Even adults may self-censor if age verification systems block or flag content.
Minor Party Implications: Restrictive measures could reduce reach and engagement, effectively muting the political voice of minor parties in the digital sphere.
Summary:
The legal implications are broad, centering on freedom of political communication, proportionality, privacy, access to information, and equality of opportunity in political discourse. By restricting under‑16s’ access, the law may inadvertently silence both youth voices and minor-party amplification, which could provide fertile ground for constitutional or privacy-based challenges.