Two Australian teenagers have launched a landmark High Court challenge against their government's unprecedented ban on social media for children under 16, arguing it violates their constitutional right to communicate.
Constitutional Challenge Lodged
Fifteen-year-olds Noah Jones and Macy Neyland are the named plaintiffs in the case, which was lodged by the advocacy group Digital Freedom Project on Wednesday, 26 November 2025. They contend that the forthcoming ban, set to commence on 10 December, is grossly excessive and infringes on the implied freedom of political communication within Australia's constitution.
Australia became the first nation globally to enact such a law, which was passed in November and will prohibit under-16s from accessing major platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram.
The Plaintiffs' Stance
Noah Jones described his generation as true digital natives and expressed disappointment in a government that opts for a lazy blanket ban instead of investing in digital safety programmes. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence, he stated.
Macy Neyland argued that the voters of tomorrow should not be barred from expressing their views. She drew a parallel to George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, saying, We shouldn't be silenced... that scares me.
Government and Wider Implications
In a pointed response during parliamentary Question Time, Communications Minister Anika Wells asserted the government's firm commitment to the new law, vowing not to be intimidated by threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives.
The Digital Freedom Project, led by NSW MP John Ruddick, warned that the ban disproportionately harms vulnerable youths, including those with disabilities, First Nations teenagers, and LGBTIQ youth. The case will centre on whether the ban places an unconstitutional burden on young people's political engagement.
The controversy has even prompted one Australian influencer family, the Emily Family, to announce they will relocate to the UK to circumvent the prohibition, highlighting the law's profound personal impacts.
