Security Generation
Amid the global trend toward banning minors’ access to social media, while browsing the internet, we came across a post by a colleague specializing in legal affairs, highlighting an important decision issued last week by the French Constitutional Council. The Council ruled that the “general ban on access to social networking sites for individuals under the age of fifteen” was unconstitutional, as it constituted a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and communication, given the insufficient legal safeguards regarding age verification and privacy protection. Notably, this decision came in response to a challenge filed by several Members of Parliament against a law previously approved by Parliament but not yet implemented.
In our effort, we have translated the decision. We must note, however, that we lack expertise in the French language, let alone specialized legal drafting.
What stood out in the decision was that the Council did not reject the objective of the bill; rather, it affirmed its legitimacy, which lies in protecting children from addiction, isolation, cyberbullying, grooming, and inappropriate content on social media platforms. In simple terms, the decision rejected the means, not the end. The challenged law imposed a blanket ban that made no distinction between services, failed to consider the child’s age, maturity, or the nature of the platform, and required everyone—adults and minors alike—to prove their ages without guarantees safeguarding their privacy. Consequently, and in line with the consensus among many experts, this restriction and interference with freedom are not appropriate, necessary, or proportionate to the intended goal.
Relying solely on prohibition is no longer a sufficient, fair, or even effective option, as numerous experiences have demonstrated. True protection is not built on a single wall, but on an integrated system where multiple stakeholders share complementary responsibilities. On one hand, companies and platforms must bear their share of responsibility by making safety an integral part of product design, following the “safety by design” principle, rather than leaving it as a complex secondary option dependent on family initiative and technical knowledge. On the other hand, no framework is acceptable that deprives parents of their right to assess their child’s best interests—a point the French Council raised against the law, which did not allow parents to lift or tailor the ban according to their child’s circumstances. The family is an essential partner whose exclusion is unjustifiable, yet it should not bear the entire burden of responsibility alone.
The most crucial pillar remains awareness, which is our strongest weapon. The real gap is not in technical empowerment; our youth are adept at using modern digital tools, and there is no doubt they will innovate in finding ways to access them. The gap lies in behavioral and value-based awareness. Hence, the pivotal role of the family and school emerges in instilling digital citizenship and awareness programs targeted at families and children.
The lesson from Paris is clear: a sweeping ban may fall before the constitutional court, while the graduated model based on design responsibility, family empowerment, and awareness remains resilient. This is what countries should adopt, through a national, age- and risk-based framework that assigns duties to platforms, safeguards the role of parents, and places awareness as its primary pillar. High walls will not protect our children and youth as effectively as solid awareness, responsible design, engaged families, and a cohesive society. This is the protection needed to build a safe generation.
Dr. Dhafer Adel Al-Huwail
