Two 15‑year-old Australians have filed a constitutional challenge to the government’s upcoming social media ban, arguing it violates their right to free political communication and is “grossly excessive.”
The plaintiffs, identified as Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, say the law unfairly silences young teens — stripping them of important digital freedoms rather than addressing issues like cyberbullying or harmful content. In a public statement, Jones criticized the law as “lazy,” and argued that young people must remain active, educated participants in the digital world. Neyland added the ban would hamper the ability of young people — tomorrow’s voters — to express opinions and engage in political discourse.
The law, passed in November 2024 by the country’s Labor government, will require major platforms — including X, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok — to block users under the age of 16 as early as December 10, 2025. Failure to comply could expose platforms to multi-million‑dollar fines. Officials estimate up to 350,000 Australian teens ages 13 to 15 may be affected.
Supporters of the law argue it protects children from cyberbullying, online predators, and harmful content. But critics — including digital‑rights organizations and politicians such as Libertarian Party lawmaker John Ruddick — say it places government bureaucrats in charge of parental responsibility and silences young voices, especially in civic and political debate. The Digital Freedom Project, which Ruddick leads, has condemned the measure as a “direct assault on young people’s right to freedom of political communication.”
Upon learning of the High Court challenge, Communications Minister Anika Wells said the government “will not be intimidated” by legal threats, defending the ban as supporting parents rather than tech platforms.
In the wake of the law’s passage, major social media firms have sent notifications to affected teen users. One platform representative told press that a better solution would grant parents the ability to approve apps or verify their child’s age — rather than impose a blanket ban.
As the case moves through Australia’s highest court, the future of teen internet access and free expression in the digital age hangs in the balance.
