remove

‘Soon, you’ll no longer be able to use Facebook’, Meta said in messages it sent to young people ahead of the social media ban.

Meta will prevent Australians younger than 16 from accessing Facebook and Instagram from December 4, as Canberra prepares to enforce a sweeping new social media law that has sparked concerns from young people and advocates.

The US tech giant said it would start removing teenagers and children from its platforms ahead of the new Australian social media ban on users under 16 coming into effect on December 10.

The Australian government is preparing to enforce the law with fines of up to 49.5 million Australian Dollars (US$32 million) for social media companies even as critics say the changes have been rushed through without addressing questions around privacy, and the effects on young people’s mental health and access to information.

“From today, Meta will be notifying Australian users it understands to be aged 13-15 that they will lose access to Instagram, Threads and Facebook,” Meta said in a statement.

“Meta will begin blocking new under-16 accounts and revoking existing access from 4 December, expecting to remove all known under-16s by 10 December.”

There are around 350,000 Instagram users aged between 13-15 in Australia and around 150,000 Facebook accounts, according to government figures.

Meta has started warning impacted users that they will soon be locked out.

“Soon, you’ll no longer be able to use Facebook and your profile won’t be visible to you or others,” reads a message sent to users that Meta believes to be under 16.

“When you turn 16, we’ll let you know that you can start using Facebook again.”

In addition to Facebook and Instagram, the Australian government has said that the ban will be applied to several other social media platforms, including Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X and YouTube.

Ban ‘doesn’t add up’

A number of young people and advocates have expressed concerns about the implementation of the new ban, including journalist and founder of youth news service 6 News Australia Leo Puglisi, 18, who told an Australian senate inquiry that young people “deeply care” about the ban and its potential implications.

Puglisi says that many of the people who engage with 6 News are young people who find their content on social media.

“I think young people do have the right to be informed,” he told the inquiry.

“We’re saying that a 15 year old can’t access any news or political information on social media. I just don’t think that that adds up.”

Australian Senator David Shoebridge, has expressed concerns that “an estimated 2.4 million young people will be kicked off social media accounts… just as school holidays start.”

“I’m deeply concerned about the impacts on the ban including on young people’s mental health and privacy,” Shoebridge wrote in a recent post on X.

John Pane, from Electronic Frontiers Australia, also told a senate inquiry that the new legislation creates new risks, while trying to address other issues.

While Pane acknowledged the ban seeks to address young people potentially seeing “unsuitable content” online, he says it also creates a new “far greater, systemic risk” of “potential mass collection of children’s and adults’ identity data.”

This will further increase “the data stores and financial positions of big tech and big data and increasing cyber risk on a very significant scale,” Pane said.

Since most Australians aged under 16 don’t yet have official government ID, social media companies are planning to require some users to verify their age by recording videos of themselves.

Other countries mull similar bans

There is keen interest in whether Australia’s sweeping restrictions can work as regulators around the globe wrestle with the mixed dangers and benefits of social media.

In New Zealand, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is planning to introduce a similar bill to restrict children’s social media use.

Indonesia has also said it is preparing legislation to protect young people from “physical, mental, or moral perils”.

In Europe, the Dutch government has advised parents to forbid children under 15 from using social media apps like TikTok and Snapchat.

Nov. 19 (UPI) — A federal judge in Texas has ordered state schools to take down displayed posters of the Ten Commandments in supposed violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton directed schools across the Lone Star State to display the Ten Commandments less than a week after a federal court ruled in favor of 11 school districts that fought against the religious exhibition in classrooms.

On Tuesday, federal Judge Orlando L. Garcia issued a preliminary injunction that instructed the state’s districts to remove the display in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

“It is impractical, if not impossible, to prevent plaintiffs from being subjected to unwelcome religious displays without enjoining defendants from enforcing Senate Bill 10 across their districts,” he wrote.

Garcia’s order was effective December 1.

The case was brought on by 15 families of a multi-faith and nonreligious background.

“All Texas public school districts should heed the court’s clear warning: it’s plainly unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

It’s now the second time a court has ruled against the law signed into law in June by Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott, a Republican.

“Families throughout Texas and across the country get to decide how and when their children engage with religion — not politicians or public-school officials,” Laser continued.

Paxton has sued three school districts for refusing.

A legal representative for the American Civil Liberties Union in Texas said Garcia’s ruling was further affirmation of what’s already accepted legal truth: “the First Amendment guarantees families and faith communities — not the government — the right to instill religious beliefs in our children.”

Similar laws were struck down in Arkansas and Louisiana, which became the first state to pass the mandate in summer 2024.

Legal experts suggest the issue will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2015, a Ten Commandment monument was ordered by the state’s Supreme Court to be removed from the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds, arguing that Oklahoma’s constitution banned the use of public property for “the benefit of any religious purpose.”

“Our schools are for education, not evangelization,” Chloe Kempf, a staff attorney for the Texas ACLU, added in a statement. “This ruling protects thousands of Texas students from ostracization, bullying and state-mandated religious coercion.”

Every school district in Texas, she added, was “now on notice that implementing S.B. 10 violates their students’ constitutional rights.”

Denver Broncos linebacker and tackling savant Alex Singleton has long set a positive example for young football players in Southern California.

He holds annual free camps and clinics at his alma mater, Thousand Oaks High. He partners with the Special Olympics to raise awareness and support for his sister and others with disabilities. He brought the Thousand Oaks High team coached by his good friend Evan Yabu to SoFi Stadium to watch the Broncos play the Chargers.

And when Yabu became coach at Sherman Oaks Notre Dame High two years ago, he became a familiar face there as well.

But nothing he’s done can rival the message he posted Monday on social media revealing his testicular cancer diagnosis, subsequent surgery and hopeful quick recovery.

“I wrestled with sharing such personal information publicly,” he wrote. “But the fact is, if it helps one person decide to pay closer attention to their body, then it is well worth it.

“Early detection and regular screenings save lives and can save loved ones from a lot of grief.”

Singleton revealed that elevated levels of the hormone Human Chorionic Gonadotropin were discovered from a random NFL drug test. An exam by a urologist confirmed the cancer diagnosis last week. Yet he elected to play Thursday against the Las Vegas Raiders before undergoing surgery to remove the tumor Friday.

He told close friends on a group text that the drug test indicated he either was on steroids or had testicular cancer. He wrote that he doesn’t take steroids, so he planned to play in the game then go straight into surgery.

Singleton, the Broncos’ leading tackler and a team captain, had nine tackles in the Broncos’ 10-7 victory over the Raiders. He addressed teammates Monday.

“This morning, I stood before our team as a lucky man,” he posted on Instagram. “I shared with my teammates and coaches that I underwent successful surgery on Friday for testicular cancer after being diagnosed last week.

“Thankfully, we believe the cancer was caught early with a great prognosis for me and my family. While we are still awaiting some additional test results, I fully expect to return to the field in the coming weeks.”

Singleton, 31, is a tackling machine. He first gained national recognition when he recorded 21 total tackles and two tackles for loss in a win over the Chargers in 2022. His 19 solo tackles were second most in NFL history.

Last season, he suffered a torn ACL in the first quarter of a game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers but continued to play a remarkable 49 snaps, finishing with 10 tackles.

Singleton, who played at FCS school Montana State, has recorded at least 120 tackles four times and has a team-high 89 tackles in 10 games this season.

“[We’ll] be there for him, continue the fight with him,” Broncos linebacker Justin Strnad told reporters Monday. “I’m just glad everyone is here to support him…. Ultimate competitor, ultimate team player. He’s going to overcome it, and we’re all going to be here for him.”

Singleton’s wife, Sam, gave birth in February to their first child, a daughter named Tallyn Maye. Singleton recognizes that his health comes before football, telling reporters Monday that he will study the pathology report and be tested weekly. He said a CT scan showed that the cancer had not spread, but he is unsure how long he will be sidelined while recovering.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.