The looming social media under-16 ban, set to come into action from 10 December, faces a High Court challenge ‘represented’ by two teenagers who have likened the ban to George Orwell’s 1984.
Backed by advocacy group Digital Freedom Project, 15-year-olds Norah Jones and Macy Neyland have filed proceedings in the High Court. The pair are named as plaintiffs in the legal challenge as “representative” members of the cohort impacted by the ban.
They will argue that the ban on social media accounts for under-16s is unconstitutional because it interferes with free and open political communication and disregards the rights of children.
The advocacy group announced yesterday (26 November) that proceedings had been filed in the High Court challenging the looming ban on Australians aged under 16 from platforms including Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube.
“We shouldn’t be silenced. It’s like Orwell’s book 1984, and that scares me,” Macy Neyland said in a statement.
“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow. Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views? If you personally think that kids shouldn’t be on social media, stay off it yourself, but don’t impose it on me and my peers. Driving us to fake profiles and VPNs is bad safety policy. Bring us into safer spaces, with rules that work: age‑appropriate features, privacy‑first age assurance, and fast takedowns,” Neyland said.
“We are the true digital natives, and we want to remain educated, robust, and savvy in our digital world. 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. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence,” Jones said.
“This ban is a direct assault on young people’s right to freedom of political communication. But it’s worse than that. Come 1 10 December, all kids will be banned, and all the rest of us will have to prove our age and potentially provide ID just to access social media. A lot of people will get sucked into getting the digital ID, which is about as Big Brother as you can get,” Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, a Libertarian Party member of the New South Wales upper house said in a statement.
“It is not the government’s role to parent children; it should be up to families to decide when their children are ready for social media. This is the most draconian legislation of its type in the world. Even the Chinese Communist Party would be drooling over this,” he added.
Government will not be “intimidated” by legal threats
Communications Minister Anika Wells appeared to address the case in Question Time on Wednesday, saying the federal government remained “firm” in its commitment to implement the laws.
“Despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives, the Albanese Labor government remains steadfastly on the side of parents, and not platforms,” she said. “We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by big tech on behalf of Australian parents. We stand firm”.
Although the Coalition voted in favour of the social media age limit a year ago, opposition communications spokeswoman Melissa McIntosh on Wednesday expressed concern about the laws.
“The Coalition did support the ban, but ever since then … coming into this role, I’ve questioned whether it’s going to work or not. I think there’s a high risk of failure on this,” she said.
McIntosh said she was “not surprised” by the legal challenge to the ban.
When asked if she reserved the right to withdraw support for the social media ban if there were “unintended consequences” a month or so into the rollout, Ms McIntosh said: “of course”.
Does a case like this hold up?
The basis of the legal argument is the implied right established in 1992 under Australia’s constitution that citizens must be able to engage in political communication to inform their electoral choices. The implied right to this freedom is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions.
This argument was one of three legal options initially floated by lawyers acting for Google, which wrote to Communications Minister Anika Wells in July, urging the government not to include YouTube in the ban.
While initially included in the ban, the government later flagged an exemption for YouTube on the basis of its use for educational purposes. Continuing the saga, in June, the government again backflipped following firm advice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant that the platform is a major source of online harm for young people and its carve-out “appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of the act.”
In July, YouTube was officially included as part of the government’s social media ban for kids under the age of 16.
Google’s lawyers claimed the age limit would prevent young adults under the age of 16 from having an account and being able to “contribute to political communication by posting videos on YouTube and by making comments on those videos”.
The case brings to light the role that social media platforms play in democratising information and providing platforms for a variety of voices to share opinions. As the social media age ban looms ever closer, platforms hold their breaths yet again as this legal challenge takes to the courts.
