Australia’s controversial new law banning children from social media platforms is now facing a constitutional challenge in the nation’s High Court, after two teenagers claimed the policy violates their right to free communication.
Beginning December 10, major platforms such as Meta, TikTok, and YouTube will be legally required to prevent anyone under the age of 16 from holding an account in Australia. The law has drawn global attention as one of the strictest social media regulations for minors.
The government and child-safety advocates argue that the legislation is essential to protect young users from harmful content, addictive algorithms, and online exploitation. However, 15-year-olds Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, supported by a digital rights organization, contend that the ban completely ignores the voices and rights of young people.
Teens Say Ban Silences Young Voices
Macy Neyland compared the ban to a dystopian future, saying in a statement:
“We shouldn’t be silenced. This feels like something out of Orwell’s 1984, and it’s frightening.”
Noah Jones criticized the policy as overly simplistic and ineffective:
“We are the true digital generation. We want to stay informed and safe online. The government should build safeguards, not silence us.”
Government Stands Firm Against Legal Challenge
Following the announcement of the court case, Communications Minister Anika Wells told Parliament that the government would not retreat from its position.
“We will not be intimidated by legal threats, challenges, or big tech companies. On behalf of Australian families, we will stand firm,” she said.
Digital Rights Group Leads Legal Action
The lawsuit has been filed by the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), a group led by New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick. The organization argues that social media is a critical tool for communication, education, and social connection—especially for vulnerable groups such as:
- Youth with disabilities
- First Nations young people
- Rural and remote students
- LGBTIQ+ teenagers
DFP says the ban may do more harm than good by isolating these communities.
The legal challenge will focus on whether the law unfairly restricts political communication and whether it is proportionate to the government’s goal of protecting children online.
Alternatives to a Total Ban
Instead of a blanket ban, DFP is advocating for alternative safety measures, including:
- Strong digital literacy programs
- Mandatory age-appropriate design features on platforms
- Privacy-protecting age verification technologies
These solutions, the group says, would enhance safety without cutting young people off from digital participation.
Mixed Public Response
While the law is popular among most Australian adults based on recent polling, it faces criticism from mental health professionals who worry the ban could:
- Increase social isolation among teens
- Push young users toward unregulated online spaces
- Reduce access to online support networks
Australian media have also reported that Google, which owns YouTube, is considering its own constitutional challenge to the legislation.
