According to TechRepublic, Australia’s sweeping social media ban for users under 16 faces a constitutional challenge from two 15-year-olds just weeks before its December 10 implementation date. Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, backed by the Digital Freedom Project advocacy group, are taking their case to Australia’s High Court arguing the law violates the implied freedom of political communication. The legislation passed last year threatens platforms like TikTok, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat with fines up to A$49.5 million ($29.3 million) if they fail to block under-16 accounts. The teens seek either an injunction blocking enforcement or a declaration that the minimum age provisions are invalid when applied to political communication.
The political speech argument
Here’s where this gets constitutionally interesting. Australia doesn’t have a written bill of rights like the U.S., but courts have recognized an “implied freedom of political communication” as part of their constitutional framework. The teenagers argue that social media platforms have become essential infrastructure for political participation – especially for young people who might not have access to traditional media channels. Basically, they’re saying the government can’t just cut off an entire generation from what’s become the modern public square. Their legal filing specifically targets the provisions that would prevent “communication by, to and between them of political and governmental matters.” It’s a clever legal strategy that could have far-reaching implications beyond just social media access.
Safety versus silence
The teens aren’t arguing that social media is perfect – far from it. Their position is that the government’s approach is what they call “lazy” policy. Instead of removing harmful content and predators, the law removes the users themselves. Jones told BBC Radio that platforms should be using resources to “get rid of the predators and harmful content out there” rather than avoiding government fines. Neyland raised the practical concern that driving teens to fake profiles and VPNs actually creates worse safety outcomes. They’re proposing alternatives like age-appropriate features, privacy-first age assurance, and faster content takedowns. It’s a more nuanced approach than an outright ban.
The enforcement nightmare
Even the government’s own eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant acknowledges this won’t be simple. She told ABC News that under-16s won’t “magically disappear overnight” from platforms. The regulator’s guidance encourages a “layered approach” to age checking and explicitly states companies can’t rely solely on government-issued ID. But think about the practical implications here. How do you verify ages without invasive data collection? What about privacy concerns? The eSafety office says they’ll compel platforms to report on what they’ve done and how many accounts they’ve deactivated, but this feels like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
Government doubles down
Despite the legal challenge, Communications Minister Anika Wells is standing firm. “We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech,” she declared. The government’s position is that this is necessary to protect young Australians from harmful algorithms and content contributing to bullying and body image issues. But here’s the thing – is a blanket ban really the most effective solution? Or does it just push the problem underground while creating new ones? The High Court case could determine whether Australia’s approach represents reasonable regulation or constitutional overreach. Either way, December 10 is shaping up to be a landmark date for digital rights down under.
