Reddit has moved the High Court of Australia to strike down the country’s new law restricting access to social media for children under 16, arguing that the legislation unlawfully limits political communication and does little to actually protect minors from online harm.
In a constitutional challenge filed in the Sydney Registry, Reddit Inc. is seeking a declaration that the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 is invalid. The company has also asked the court to stop the Communications Minister from formally classifying Reddit as an “age-restricted social media platform” under the law.
At the heart of the case is whether Australia can legally bar children under-16 from holding accounts on certain online platforms, a move Reddit says is unprecedented globally and incompatible with Australia’s system of representative democracy.
What the law does
The amendment adds a new Part 4A to the Online Safety Act 2021, requiring platforms classified as “age-restricted social media platforms” to take “reasonable steps” to ensure Australian children under-16 do not hold accounts.
The law defines such platforms broadly, covering services whose “sole or significant purpose” is to enable online social interaction or services specifically named by the Minister through legislative rules. The Minister may only make such a designation if satisfied it is “reasonably necessary” to minimise harm to children and must consider advice from the eSafety Commissioner.
Platforms that permit logged-out access still allow children without accounts to view content.
Why Reddit says the law is unconstitutional
Reddit argues that the amendment places a serious burden on the implied freedom of political communication, a constitutional principle that protects the free flow of political ideas necessary for voters to make informed choices.
The filing says the ban stops all Australians under-16 from taking part in political discussions on major platforms that require an account, even though political debate is common on Reddit and Australian politicians regularly interact with users there.
The company argues that the restriction affects not only children but also current voters who read, respond to, or are influenced by young people’s views. It further affects future voters by shaping their political understanding years before they become eligible to vote.
The filing notes that the High Court has repeatedly held that the Constitution protects political communication “from all and to all”, including people who are not currently eligible to vote.
Limited protection, heavy restriction
Reddit contends that lawmakers designed the law poorly to achieve their stated aim of protecting children from online harm.
The amendment only restricts account creation. It does not limit access to content that is freely visible without logging in. Reddit says this significantly undermines the law’s…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
