live_tv
Livestream Starting Soon
00
Hours
:
00
Minutes
:
00
Seconds
Up next in 10
Australia's Online Safety Act bans social media for under 16s, raising concerns about censorship & parental roles. Will this law backfire, driving kids to unsupervised online activity? A High Court challenge is underway. #OnlineSafety #InternetCensorship #DigitalFreedom #ParentalControl
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
A year ago, the Commonwealth passed the
0:01
Online Safety Amendment, Social Media
0:04
Minimum Age Act. These platforms will
0:06
soon be banned for under 16 year olds.
0:08
Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, Snapchat,
0:10
X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, and Kick.
0:12
Face alone has 350,000 Australian
0:16
accounts under the age of 16. The
0:18
Digital Freedom Project has launched a
0:20
high court constitutional challenge to
0:22
the validity of this law. We say that it
0:24
is contrary to the accept long accepted
0:26
implied freedom of political
0:27
communication. We're hopeful of having a
0:29
hearing early in the new year. But let's
0:31
give Mr. Mr. Albanzy the benefit of the
0:33
doubt and let's accept for a moment he
0:35
is he is motivated by a desire to
0:37
protect teenagers from social media
0:38
harms. This law will be
0:41
counterproductive. It will increase
0:43
social media harm for teenagers. How so?
0:47
Every school playground across Australia
0:50
has been a buzz for months that a Mr.
0:52
Albanese is about to shut down their
0:54
social media, but b that here's a great
0:57
way to get around it. Kids have bright,
0:58
sharp, and creative minds. They are
1:00
techsavvy. Yes, Mr. Albanesei will play
1:03
whack-a-ole and try to shut down
1:05
alternative ways of accessing social
1:06
media. But like King Canoot, he will
1:08
fail. So parents will tune out and
1:11
assume social media supervision is not
1:13
required because Mr. Albani said so. But
1:16
then kids will still access social
1:18
media. Underground and unsupervised
1:21
social media. Just like the American
1:23
experiment in banning alcohol a century
1:26
ago backfired and cause more harm. So
1:28
will this. The only solution is strict
1:31
and unrelenting parental supervision of
1:34
online activity for under 16y olds. It
1:37
is a paramount parental responsibility.
1:39
Under this law, however, teenagers will
1:42
become lawb breakakers, setting a
1:44
harmful precedent at such a formative
1:46
age. This law will be a slippery slope
1:48
towards more internet censorship. The
1:51
state lust lusts to control what
1:54
information citizens can access.
1:57
There will be mission creep. If this law
1:59
is upheld, then it won't be long until
2:01
more laws come out to restrict the
2:03
internet. This is about creating the
2:04
apparatus for more state censorship of
2:07
the internet. This is what George Orwell
2:09
warned us about. It's happening all
2:11
around the world. Uh but but alarmingly,
2:14
Australia is at the forefront of it.
2:16
Now, even if this ban does work, then it
2:18
will mean that once someone has turned
2:20
16, without ever having had any online
2:23
experience, they are then thrown into
2:25
the deep end and not have the skills to
2:27
spot something suspicious. This foolish
2:30
ban will also be bad for tourism. Why
2:32
would a family with teenage teenagers
2:34
want to visit Australia under this
2:36
regime?
2:37
This law will also require that everyone
2:40
over the age of 16 will need to prove
2:42
their age. That will be cumbersome and
2:44
invasive. But no doubt the government
2:46
will try and convince you that if you
2:48
take up digital ID, it'll make it all oh
2:50
so easy. The digital ID is the real
2:52
motive behind this new regime. Anonymous
2:55
accounts are a valuable part of social
2:57
media. These people, for whatever
2:59
reason, want to retain privacy, but they
3:02
will be required to cough up ID. When
3:04
this law was a bill, it was sent to a
3:06
Senate committee. Uh the public were
3:09
given one day to make submissions. M Mr.
3:11
President, that is the shortest time
3:13
frame in the history of the
3:14
Commonwealth. Now, despite that outrage
3:16
that this bill was only the public could
3:18
only make submissions for one day, this
3:20
bill attracted over 15,000 submissions.
3:23
It's the largest number in the history
3:24
of the Commonwealth. The government was
3:27
frightened of scrutiny. Now, I would
3:29
like to thank Liberal Senator Andrew
3:31
Bragg and the shadow minister for
3:32
communications, Melissa Macintosh, for
3:34
their recent statements indicating the
3:36
federal liberals are reconsidering
3:38
support for this bill. Now, it is too
3:40
late because under Mr. silly Mr. Peter
3:42
Dutton, they did support this bill,
3:43
which was a disgrace. So, we at the
3:46
Digital Freedom Project are hopeful of
3:48
success in the high court, and we hope
3:50
to hear by about March next year. But if
3:52
we're not, then the repeal campaign will
3:54
have only just begun and will be a
3:56
central issue at the next federal
3:57
election.
#Legal
#Kids & Teens
#Public Policy