Uploaded September 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 hours ago
Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, would prevent people under 16 from having accounts on designated social media services unless the service obtains an exemption from the Digital Safety Commission. In this episode, I explain why I think that restriction violates the freedom of expression guarantee in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — and why it is unlikely to survive the section 1 Oakes test.
Protecting young people from genuine social-media harms is undoubtedly an important objective. But constitutional rights require governments to pursue those objectives proportionately. Bill C-34’s account ban treats all young people alike and restricts access to an important forum for political, artistic, educational and social expression even though less restrictive alternatives — including safer design, parental controls and targeted restrictions on harmful features — are available.
I also look at the French Constitutional Council’s August 2026 decision striking down France’s similar social-media restriction for minors. While French constitutional law does not determine the Canadian question, the Council’s reasoning — that a broad prohibition was not sufficiently tailored to the actual risks posed by particular services or the circumstances of particular young people — closely resembles the analysis a Canadian court could undertake under the Charter’s minimal-impairment requirement.
Cases discussed:
► R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 — the foundation of the section 1 proportionality test. canlii.ca/t/1ftv6
► Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 — freedom of expression and Quebec’s prohibition on advertising directed at children. canlii.ca/t/1ft6g
► RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 — freedom of expression, broad prohibitions and minimal impairment. canlii.ca/t/1frgz
► Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 — including the Court’s consideration of whether a blanket prohibition was broader than necessary to achieve the government’s protective objective. canlii.ca/t/gg5z4
► France Constitutional Council Decision No. 2026-911 DC of August 14, 2026 - Finding that France's social media ban for young people was unconstitutional https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2026/2026911DC.htm (in French)
Where you can find me:
► Privacylawyer blog: blog.privacylawyer.ca
► My law firm: mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser
► Twitter: twitter.com/privacylawyer
► LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser
Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel.
All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.
Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, would prevent people under 16 from having accounts on designated social media services unless the service obtains an exemption from the Digital Safety Commission. In this episode, I explain why I think that restriction violates the freedom of expression guarantee in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — and why it is unlikely to survive the section 1 Oakes test.
Protecting young people from genuine social-media harms is undoubtedly an important objective. But constitutional rights require governments to pursue those objectives proportionately. Bill C-34’s account ban treats all young people alike and restricts access to an important forum for political, artistic, educational and social expression even though less restrictive alternatives — including safer design, parental controls and targeted restrictions on harmful features — are available.
I also look at the French Constitutional Council’s August 2026 decision striking down France’s similar social-media restriction for minors. While French constitutional law does not determine the Canadian question, the Council’s reasoning — that a broad prohibition was not sufficiently tailored to the actual risks posed by particular services or the circumstances of particular young people — closely resembles the analysis a Canadian court could undertake under the Charter’s minimal-impairment requirement.
Cases discussed:
► R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 — the foundation of the section 1 proportionality test. canlii.ca/t/1ftv6
► Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 — freedom of expression and Quebec’s prohibition on advertising directed at children. canlii.ca/t/1ft6g
► RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 — freedom of expression, broad prohibitions and minimal impairment. canlii.ca/t/1frgz
► Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 — including the Court’s consideration of whether a blanket prohibition was broader than necessary to achieve the government’s protective objective. canlii.ca/t/gg5z4
► France Constitutional Council Decision No. 2026-911 DC of August 14, 2026 - Finding that France's social media ban for young people was unconstitutional https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2026/2026911DC.htm (in French)
Where you can find me:
► Privacylawyer blog: blog.privacylawyer.ca
► My law firm: mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser
► Twitter: twitter.com/privacylawyer
► LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser
Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel.
All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.
![A Christmas [Privacy] Carol - 2024 Holiday Special](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Uc9W3FfwIsY/mqdefault.jpg "A Christmas [Privacy] Carol - 2024 Holiday Special
Many classic stories have privacy themes. For the Holidays 2024, I take a look at the Charles Dickens classic A Christmas Carol. You may not know, but its a story of creepy intrusion into the private lives of the Chratchitt family, a tale of your [digital] legacy and how to curate it.
Where you can find me
► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca
► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/...
► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer
► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfr...
Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel.
All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.")
