CANBERRA — At position 9 in the public gallery queue outside the High Court of Australia, our observation began at 8:41 a.m., behind a man holding a thermos and ahead of a woman rehearsing the phrase "world-leading" under her breath. Inside, the Commonwealth is defending its ban on social media for users under 16 against a court challenge. The government concedes it implemented the policy — which it has called "world-leading" — before any scientific consensus existed linking social media use to mental health harms in teenagers. It argues that "credible risks", including addictive behaviours and anxiety, justify the ban regardless.
The first "credible risk" was uttered at 10:02 a.m. I tallied thirty-four before the lunch adjournment, from four separate mouths, none of whose owners appeared to notice the repetition. The phrase performs a known function in this colony: it authorises action without knowledge while sounding careful. Counsel's lanyard sat at a 15-degree tilt, a posture previously logged as professional innocence. A security officer apologised to me twice for a queue I had joined voluntarily.
The Commonwealth also argues that its proposed laws letting users opt out of the algorithms would ultimately have the same effect as the ban, a proposition delivered evenly, as one might note that two enclosures share a fence. Elodie Marsh, a solicitor waiting for the afternoon session, told me: "When the facts run out, they reach for risk. It's the standard trade-down. Nobody in that building is embarrassed."
At 1:07 p.m., position 4 in the re-formed queue, I met Margaret Oster, 61, a retired school principal, who described the arrangement with total serenity: "They picked the rule first and went looking for the science after. That's the normal order here. Nobody expects it the other way around."
Hedges were logged separately: seventeen "may", eleven "might", nine "could", and four uses of "emerging" fastened to the word "evidence". The word "consensus" entered the Commonwealth's own defence six times. On every occasion it was preceded by "no". It never appeared alone.
The hearing continues. Final tallies: "credible risk", thirty-four; hedges, forty-one; consensus, six, each wearing "no" as a prefix; consensus unaccompanied, zero. The thermos man never refilled it. Somebody must count these things. The species has not volunteered.
