Two Australian teenagers have launched a urgent legal challenge against the federal government's impending ban on social media for under-16s, arguing it unconstitutionally restricts their freedom of political communication.
The Legal Challenge
Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, both aged 15, are spearheading the High Court injunction application with support from the Digital Freedom Project, an initiative led by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick. The legal action, filed just two weeks before the ban is set to commence on 10 December, names the federal government, the communications minister and the eSafety commissioner as respondents.
The Digital Freedom Project contends that the legislation would 'improperly rob' 2.6 million young Australians of their implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. Court documents reveal the group's argument that the ban prevents young people from using 'account-based social interaction to engage in communication of political and governmental matters.'
Impact on Young People
The plaintiffs argue that merely allowing logged-out access to platforms like YouTube provides no meaningful substitute for the interactive functions essential to contemporary political discourse. 'Logged-out viewing does not provide a meaningful substitute for the interactive functions which are integral to contemporary modes of free political communication,' the statement of claim asserts.
Under the legislation, major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X, Twitch, Kick and Reddit must prevent children under 16 from holding accounts from the December deadline. Both Meta and Snap Inc have indicated they will use ID checks as a fallback option when facial age estimation fails.
Political Backlash and Government Response
Communications Minister Anika Wells responded defiantly to the legal challenge during parliamentary question time, stating 'the Albanese Labor government remains steadfastly on the side of parents, not of platforms.' She emphasised the government would not be intimidated by 'threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives.'
Meanwhile, the teenage plaintiffs expressed their frustration with the policy. 'We're disappointed in a lazy government that blanket bans under-16s rather than investing in programs to help kids be safe on social media,' said Noah Jones. Macy Neyland, who will turn 16 before the ban takes effect, criticised the approach: 'Driving us to fake profiles and VPNs is bad safety policy.'
The High Court will determine whether to hear the case during its next sitting period in early December, creating a race against time before the controversial ban comes into force.
