Introduction
It is becoming increasingly clear that aspects of social media design can be harmful to children’s mental health and pose other dangers requiring protective measures. In recognition of these dangers, countries around the world have introduced bans which limit children from using social media. In Australia – the first country to adopt a child social media ban – children under 16 cannot hold accounts on specified social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.
Most recently, on 17 September, the EU has announced a plan to put an age limit on social media via its EU KIDS Act. Under this approach, there will be no social media access for those under the age of 13 and no personal account under the age of 15. From 13 to 15 years of age, children will only be able to have ‘mini’ accounts set up and supervised by parents or guardians, with limited features and a time restriction to a maximum of one hour per day.
Given the rapid and important nature of the global regulation of children’s access to social media, it is important to reflect on whether this approach is compliant with international human rights law, specifically the right of children to protest online – which has not yet been considered in the debate on this issue.
I argue in this blog that greater consideration of children’s role as online political activists and participants in democracy should be undertaken when governments are drafting age-related restrictions to social media.
Social Media as a Political Participation Platform for Young People
Children have a right to political participation, protected by Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which gives all citizens the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs. Such a right is also in line with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides that, on all matters affecting them, children have the right to express their views and have them taken into account, in accordance with their age and maturity.
Whilst children do not enjoy the right to vote in most countries, children today participate in political activities in a number of ways – including by signing online petitions and participating in protests (online and/or physically). An example of the use of social media by children for protest and political change is the movement Fridays for Future, which included as a central feature its social media campaign #FridaysForFuture.
A prominent example of the power of youth activists using social media to campaign for change is provided by Greta Thunberg who joined Twitter/X when she was 15 years of age and used Twitter extensively to share updates and respond to world leaders. Another example is Leah Namugerwa, a Ugandan climate activist and Fridays for Future organiser who began her activism and public campaigning at approximately 14 years of age and utilised Twitter extensively as a central part of her work.
In addition to these high-profile youth activists, there is evidence that many other children around the world also utilise social media in this way. Indeed, the UN Special Rapporteur on Peaceful Assembly, who conducted consultations with young people as part of her 2026 report on youth activism, notes that young people reiterated to her that ‘Internet access is a prerequisite for exercising peaceful assembly and association freedoms and for civic participation’. In this report, the Special Rapporteur has expressed strong concerns with the trend towards blanket bans:
The global emerging trend towards imposing blanket social media bans on young people under 16 creates a civic-political vacuum where they can neither assemble nor digitally associate, effectively stripping them of their political agency and collective voice.
Greater consideration of children’s political activism is required
Although there has been some brief consideration of the right to freedom of expression and privacy in deliberations on social media bans, my research shows that there has been insufficient reference to children’s status as political actors – as activists who politically communicate primarily online.
For instance, there was little to no consideration of this as part of the introduction of Australia’s social media ban for children – regarded by many as the model for such bans.
It is only now that litigation has commenced to challenge these bans that children’s right to political communication and activism is being considered. This can be seen in the August 2026 decision of the French Constitutional Council which found that France’s ban of children under 15 constituted a disproportionate restriction on children’s freedom of expression. But children’s political activism has been featured most prominently in two challenges which have been lodged in the Australian High Court which argue that Australia’s ban impermissibly burdens the constitutional freedom of political communication (Reddit v Commonwealth and Digital Freedom Project v Commonwealth). In these cases, the plaintiffs have specifically pointed to examples of youth online activism to argue that a blanket social media ban is unconstitutional.
Do social media bans impermissibly limit children’s right to political activism?
Children have a right to freedom of expression and assembly under both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Obviously a full human rights analysis of a social media ban will depend upon the nature of the specific ban imposed, noting that countries differ slightly in age restriction measures. However, as a general comment, I would argue the following.
First, there is a strong case that some level of age related regulation of social media is necessary given the evidence showing that social media platforms are based on addictive designs and that these pose psychological and other dangers to children. These harms include the encouragement of infinite scrolling and personalised algorithmic recommendation systems to foster addictive behaviours. These pose addictive dangers to all persons, but pose particular harm to children given their formative stage of development.
However, it is questionable whether a blanket ban is a reasonable and proportionate response to these dangers. This has been recognised in the August 2026 decision of the French Constitutional Council which found that a ban of children under 15 constituted a disproportionate restriction on children’s freedom of expression. In this judgement, the Council noted the link between freedom of expression and democracy. However, other jurisdictions which have implemented such bans have not specifically discussed the role which children have in undertaking political activism, particularly protesting online.
Conclusion
This discussion illustrates that a more specific analysis should be made of the particular impact of such bans on the right of children to communicate about political matters – which goes to the place of children in a democracy, their right to political participation and their right to protest. Thus, it is also important to consider children as political actors and the central role played by social media as a political network when assessing the legality of such bans. Blanket social media bans do not sufficiently consider children as political actors and a more nuanced approach is required which reflects this status.
Photo by Gilles Lambert on Unsplash
