The Supreme Court’s observations on children’s internet access raise a serious question: When laws and existing safety systems cannot fully protect children from online sexual abuse, grooming and criminal exploitation, why should access be treated as the default?
The court has valid concerns about the dangers of a blanket ban. The internet is essential for education, communication and access to information. But recognising these benefits does not mean ignoring the risks. Cannabis has recognised medical uses, but that does not make it suitable for unrestricted public consumption. The same principle applies to technology. Its usefulness does not automatically make every form of access safe for every age group.
The danger is not limited to social media. Children can encounter adult profiles, inappropriate material, strangers and harmful recommendations across different online services. Age limits and parental controls exist, but their effectiveness depends on whether platforms can verify ages, enforce restrictions and prevent children from bypassing them. Even adults face online harassment, fraud, blackmail and sexual exploitation. If existing protections struggle to prevent these crimes, expecting children to navigate the same digital environment safely is an even greater concern.
Internet access and unrestricted access are not the same thing. A child can have access to educational resources without being exposed to adult content or unsolicited messages from strangers. Technology already offers tools such as age assurance, child-specific accounts, content filters and restrictions on contact from unknown adults. The real question is why these protections should not be mandatory, independently tested and strictly enforced before platforms are allowed to offer unrestricted features to young users.
Parental supervision alone cannot solve this problem. Parents cannot watch every screen, inspect every message or understand every technical risk. The government must establish clear rules, and technology companies must take responsibility for the systems they build and the risks they create. A database to identify and remove known child sexual abuse material is useful, but removing abusive content after detection cannot prevent every case of grooming, manipulation or exploitation.
The court is right to question whether a blanket ban is practical. But the alternative cannot be an open digital environment in which children’s safety depends largely on parental vigilance and corporate promises. Age-based safeguards, stronger verification, safer default settings and meaningful penalties for non-compliance deserve serious consideration.
A child’s right to access the internet cannot be discussed without giving equal weight to a child’s right to be protected. Freedom is meaningful only when the vulnerable are not left to bear the consequences of risks they are too young to understand.
If the government and technology companies cannot guarantee a completely safe internet, they must at least demonstrate that they are doing everything reasonably possible to reduce foreseeable harm. Until then, asking whether children should have unrestricted access is not an attack on their rights. It is a demand that their safety be treated as seriously as their freedom.
