Australia has made history as the first country in the world to implement a nationwide social media ban for anyone under 16. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 took effect on 10 December 2025, requiring platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, X, Reddit, Threads, Twitch, and Kick to take “reasonable steps” to block underage users or face fines of up to $49.5 million.
But as platforms scramble to comply and over one million teenage accounts face deactivation, a critical question has emerged: does protecting children from online harms justify limiting their fundamental rights?
The Case for Protection
The government’s rationale centres on the well-documented risks social media poses to young people. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described social media as a “scourge,” stating that families are “worried sick about the safety of our kids online.”
The evidence supporting these concerns is substantial. Research has consistently linked social media use in adolescents to rising rates of body image issues, eating disorders, anxiety, and depression. A study published in the Journal of Eating Disorders in Norway found that eating disorder pathology was common among teenagers, with 80% of girls reporting that social media particularly Instagram and TikTok influenced their perception of their appearance.
The National Eating Disorders Association reports that American high school students who use social media more than two hours daily are 1.6 times more likely to experience body image issues than those who spend less time online. These platforms promote unrealistic beauty standards through filtered images, “thinspiration” content, and celebrity endorsements of wellness products that can facilitate disordered eating.
Beyond body image, there are serious concerns about how short-form content affects developing brains. Research indicates that platforms like TikTok function as “dopamine machines,” delivering constant hits of the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and reward. This creates a cycle of addiction where young users crave instant gratification, making it increasingly difficult for them to focus on activities that don’t offer immediate rewards. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for attention and impulse control, doesn’t fully develop until around age 25, leaving teenagers particularly vulnerable to these effects.
Then there’s the ever-present threat of online predators. According to the eSafety Commissioner, one in four young Australians has been contacted by someone they don’t know online. Bravehearts reports that since the COVID-19 pandemic, incidents of online grooming have reached an all-time high, with an 82% rise in online grooming crimes against children. Instagram was identified as the most common platform used by offenders to establish first contact with children.
The Case Against: A Civil Rights Concern
Despite these legitimate safety concerns, human rights organisations have raised serious objections to the blanket ban approach.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has warned that the legislation may breach Australia’s international human rights obligations. The rights at stake include freedom of expression and access to information under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as rights protected under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Human Rights Law Centre has been particularly critical, stating that these laws “would undermine the human rights of young people in unacceptable ways, including their rights to freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy.” They’ve also raised potential constitutional concerns, given the ban’s impact on political communication tools.
Amnesty International called the ban an “ineffective quick fix,” noting that “young people also have a right to express themselves online, access information and participate in the digital town square.”
Critics argue that social media provides crucial benefits for vulnerable young people. For LGBTQI+ teenagers, those with disabilities, Indigenous youth, and children in rural or remote areas, online platforms often serve as essential spaces for community, support, and access to information they may not find elsewhere. A director of a mental health service noted that “73% of young people across Australia accessing mental health support did so through social media.”
The High Court Challenge
The constitutional debate is no longer theoretical. On 26 November 2025, the Digital Freedom Project filed proceedings in the High Court of Australia, with two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, as plaintiffs.
The challenge argues that the ban violates the implied freedom of political communication recognised in Australia’s Constitution. While Australia doesn’t have an express right to free speech, the High Court has long recognised that the Constitution implies a freedom of political communication as essential for democratic participation.
“This ban is a direct assault on young people’s right to freedom of political communication,” said Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick.
Noah Jones expressed his frustration: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket bans under-16s rather than investing in programs to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”
Communications Minister Anika Wells has remained defiant, telling Parliament: “We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we stand firm.”
Both NSW and South Australia have sought to intervene in the proceedings to defend the legislation.
Social media ban, A Rushed Process?
Beyond the substantive concerns, the legislative process itself has attracted criticism. The Bill passed through both houses of Parliament in just nine days in November 2024, with the public given only one business day to make submissions. The Greens labelled the process “rushed and reckless.”
An open letter signed by 140 academics and experts argued that a ban is too blunt an instrument, with many advocating for increased media literacy education and platform regulation instead. Over 15,000 submissions were received in response to the call for feedback, yet critics argue young people themselves — the very group most affected — were largely excluded from meaningful consultation.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended that rather than a blanket ban, the government should consider introducing a statutory duty of care for social media companies to ensure their platforms are safe for children, strengthening digital literacy and online safety education, and supporting parents and educators with tools and resources.
Where Does This Leave Us?
As Australia becomes the testing ground for the world’s most comprehensive social media age restrictions, the tension between child protection and civil liberties remains unresolved.
Polling suggests 70% of Australians support the ban, though only 35% are confident it will effectively block underage users. Parents themselves appear divided on enforcement, 53% say they’ll pick and choose which platforms to allow, with only 29% intending full compliance.
The High Court challenge will ultimately determine whether the legislation survives constitutional scrutiny. But regardless of the legal outcome, the debate raises fundamental questions about how we balance protecting children from genuine harms while respecting their rights as developing citizens in a digital age.
What’s clear is that this is not a black-and-white issue. The dangers of social media for young people are real and well-documented. So too are the benefits of online connection and communication. Finding the right balance — one that protects without silencing — remains one of the most significant challenges facing Australian society.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about civil rights or constitutional law matters, contact O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors.
