In the same week that the “Lisbon 2025: Age & Trust Online” event took place at the Center for Judicial Studies, the Diário de Notícias editorial, signed by its Deputy Director, Nuno Vinha, addressed precisely the same topic: minors’ access to the digital environment.
The editorialist stated that “it is painfully difficult to read about criminal practices against young people on the networks and the behavior of teenagers themselves on these platforms and not think that it is unacceptable for governments to stand idly by”, praising the Australian government’s decision to prohibit access to social networks to minors under 16 and comparing this option to previous civilizational advances, such as universal suffrage.
At the same CEJ event, organized by Plataforma Agarrados à Net, the results of a study by the NGO Think Young, carried out in nine Member States, were presented, concluding that 80% of European parents prefer balanced monitoring and mitigation measures instead of a total ban on digital access by minors.
It is understandable that this is the case.
Although we all recognize the existence of criminal practices that exploit the vulnerability of young people online – and which require effective prevention and criminal response – it is equally true that, for the overwhelming majority of minors, the digital environment represents unavoidable opportunities. It allows access to richer educational resources, broadens horizons of knowledge, facilitates personal expression and the creation of networks of peers with common interests, strengthening the feeling of belonging, crucial in adolescence.
By exploring the digital environment, children stimulate curiosity, creativity, the ability to solve problems and critical thinking. They also have fun, learn and build skills for the world in which they will live. These dimensions are recognized in the most recent Guidelines on measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security online, published by the European Commission.
It is in the search for the balance point – the true Pareto optimum – between risks and benefits that the quality of governance is revealed. Responding well to threats does not mean ignoring rights, nor sacrificing the educational and social benefits of digital. It is important to remember that any generalized limitation on access to information, freedom of expression or participation in digital environments must respect the principles of proportionality, necessity and adequacy – fundamental to European and constitutional law.
Banning is always the simplest solution; educating and training is what truly protects.
Although there are painful cases that justify firm action, it is also essential to recognize that Law designed for an analogue world does not, in itself, keep up with the speed of the digital. The answer cannot be the leap into legislative radicalism. “All or nothing” measures deny benefits to thousands of young people – and also to many adults – without guaranteeing greater security.
The solution requires evidence-based public policies, smart regulation and serious investment in digital literacy. It is forbidden to prohibit when the prohibition causes us to lose more than it protects.